Re: Linux 2.0.30 was: Re: [DEBIAN] How to build glibc?
> Chip Salzenberg <chip@rio.atlantic.net> writes:
>
> > According to Scott Ellis:
> > > Please no, 2.0.30 is still subtly (or not so subtly) broken [...]
> >
> > I've been running 2.0.30 for a long, long time. What kind of breakage
> > do you mean?
>
> I haven't found any problems myself, but the two machines I have it
> installed on are only ever up for a few hours at a time, and both
> have plenty of memory.
>
> The most noticeable bug is "Couldn't get a free page....." coming up
> in reproduceable conditions on machines with less memory, although it
> was present in earlier versions but not as bad.
Still, I don't see at all why that would mean we shouldn't use
the kernel headers from 2.0.30 (to put them in our glibc package).
OK, there are subtle bugs in some kernel .c file somewhere. But
in the kernel headers?
> There are also various problems with the networking code, including a
> few memory leaks.
In .c files, surely?
> Some of these have probably been fixed to some extent by the patches
> applied to the Debian source for 2.0.30.
Do they patch the .h files?
--
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: