[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


>> Fabrice Lorrain <Fabrice.Lorrain@univ-mlv.fr> writes:

 > >  and it's in general a PITA to work with because of
 > >  the way the process migration is envisioned by the MOSIX developers.

 > Can you explain a bit more ??

 Oh.  I should have said 'a PITA to work with from the point of view
 of Debian packaging'.  Basically you have to fiddle with inittab,
 which is bad, then you have to fiddle with the scripts in
 /etc/init.d/, which is amazingly bad, and then you have this
 versionate thing, which is just evil.

 If you just say 'the hell with it, someone installing this package
 will have to/wants to do all that anyway' you end up with something
 which might break easily.

 Right now I'm not working with distributed stuff, so the time I spend
 with MOSIX is basically nil.  But I'd love to hear ideas regarding
 the packaging of MOSIX for Debian.
 > > If you check WNPP you'll see there's no entry for MOSIX.  I
 > > really don't want to discourage anyone else from starting this
 > > work.

 > What's that (WNPP) ??

 Work Needing and Prospective Packages, it's linked from the
 Developer's Corner at http://www.debian.org/

 > >  AFAIK, they do.  They should work with 2.2.15 and 2.2.16, too.

 > Not completely, work with 2.2.15 but doesn't compil with 2.2.16 AND
 > gcc-2.95.2-12 (last night tests).

 Oh.  That's bad.  I remember something about 2.95 breaking some
 compilations, but that's really old and I can't find anything on the
 gcc docs.  The only thing that pops up is the -fstrict-aliasing
 problems, but strict aliasing is disabled by default.  IF strict
 aliasing is the problem, then the MOSIX code is broken (see the gcc



Reply to: