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

Re: Test packages for libc6 2.1.91+cvs

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> 3) The lpr package breaks with this. It is the only broken package I have
>    encountered so far. This is NOT a bug in glibc, it is a bug in lpd for
>    using __ivaliduser(), which is an INTERNAL glibc function, and not even
>    documented. Thus, lpr is broken. According to the comments in the glibc
>    source, lpr should be using ruserok() or iruserok(), and I have filed a
>    bug to this affect, but judging by the bug reports already filed on
>    lpr, I don't think it will get fixed. I WILL NOT hack around it in
>    glibc. This is what happens when you use undocumented things, and
>    especially when you have as crappy of code as there is in lpr. I looked
>    at it in the hopes of fixing it...and well, I wont do that again.

Well, as long as LPRNg works, who cares?  As you said, this is not the only
lpd problem by far... the code is ugly and the bugs aren't getting fixed.

What will happen is pure natural selection. If lpr doesn't fix the libc6
bug, it will have to lose its standard status (and become 'extra', or,
should it not build from source anymore, get dropped from the distribution),
and LPRNG will take its place.

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Attachment: pgpwvIk8uppAE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: