Re: Bug#280213: Exim4 problem 1-line fix
On 2004-11-09 John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --- /tmp/os.h-Linux 2004-11-08 21:00:10.000000000 -0600
> +#define HAVE_SYS_STATVFS_H
> I have no idea why it was broken before, or why it doesn't look for
> statvfs() already. But using it makes everything magically happy.
Is using statfs() really wrong?
Afaict from a little bit of surfing the native interface on Linux is
statfs(), support for statvfs() was a more recent addition (although
LSB requires it and discourages its use).
Anyway, I think the source is bug to be funky errors on alpha with
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 and if I am going to sidestep this I'd rather
do it properly than by using a function that is not broken by this
issue. - Can you please test whether this patch fixes the issue for
--- debian/rules.old 2004-08-01 12:28:49.000000000 +0200
+++ debian/rules 2004-11-09 18:39:47.000000000 +0100
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
-CFLAGS = -g -Wall -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing
+CFLAGS := -g -Wall $(shell getconf LFS_CFLAGS) -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing
ifneq (,$(findstring noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
CFLAGS += -O0
thanks, cu andreas
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"