Re: [PATCHES] glibc 2.1, Linux, and chown
- To: Richard Henderson <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [PATCHES] glibc 2.1, Linux, and chown
- From: Joel Klecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 19:44:21 -0800
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <19981212150659.A22097@dot.cygnus.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; from Jim Pick on Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 10:17:18AM -0800 <E0zorSK-0001aZemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 15:06 -0800 1998-12-12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 10:17:18AM -0800, Jim Pick wrote:
Alpha is different.
At issue is that Alpha didn't go through the same syscall number
changes as everyone else. We'd been following DU, which already
defined both chown and lchown.
Unless 2.0 alpha kernels have both chown and lchown and both syscalls
behave in the expected manner in those kernels, there is a problem.
The real issue is the case of a glibc compiled with 2.1 kernel
headers working with 2.0 kernels.
The glibc FAQ says it is supposed to be safe to run a 2.0 kernel with
a glibc compiled with 2.1 kernel headers, without something to
compensate for the differing chown behavior, this is not true.
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) <URL:http://web.espy.org/>
Debian GNU/Linux PowerPC -- <URL:http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/>