Re: Does kernel 2.1..86 fix the chown/lchown problem?
In article <[🔎] 87zpjs4sir.fsf@nevermore.csres.utexas.edu>,
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>From the 2.1.81 patch overview:
>
> * lchown syscall added.
>
>From the 2.1.86 patch overview:
>
> * chown and lchown syscalls swapped.
>
>Does this swap change the default semantics back to what programs
>expect
Yes, the standard binaries now end up calling lchown() instead of chown()
so that there is no difference. The GNU fileutils will know about chown() and
lchown() and use them if you recompile them, so also in that case there
will be no problem. The only compatibility problem I foresee is running
utilities compiled with the 2.1.x (x >= 86) header files on a 2.0.x kernel-
then chown() suddenly doesn't exist anymore.
>or should I still expect dpkg, etc. problems?
I've been running 2.1.86 on my machine at work for a few days and I've
installed some packages with dpkg, and didn't run into any problems.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed
miquels@cistron.nl | awake all night wondering if there is a doG
--
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: