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

redhat patches it...need for next glibc build

   Talking to Franz Sirl I just found out the real reason that
RedHat doesn't suffer from OpenOffice aborting on the first launches
like we do under debian glibc 2.3.1. It appears that they have
been undoing the GLIBC_PRIVATE on __libc_wait and __libc_waitpid.
Check a recent redhat glibc 2.3.1 srpm and you will find that they 
have a...

--- glibc-2.3.1-cygnus/posix/Versions   18 Oct 2002 08:20:58 -0000
+++ glibc-2.3.1-redhat/posix/Versions   18 Oct 2002 10:27:33 -0000      1.10
@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ libc {
     # functions with special/multiple interfaces
     __bsd_getpgrp; __setpgid; __getpgid;
+    # This will be GLIBC_PRIVATE, just give Sun JDK some time to catch up
+    __libc_wait; __libc_waitpid;
     # functions with required interface outside normal name space
@@ -83,6 +86,9 @@ libc {
   GLIBC_2.1.2 {
     # functions used in other libraries
+    # This will be GLIBC_PRIVATE, just give wine some time to catch up
+    __libc_fork; 
   GLIBC_2.2 {
     # p*
@@ -119,7 +125,8 @@ libc {
     # functions which have an additional interface since they are
     # are cancelable.
-    __libc_wait; __libc_waitpid; __libc_pause; __libc_nanosleep; __libc_fork;
+    # __libc_wait; __libc_waitpid;
+    __libc_pause; __libc_nanosleep; # __libc_fork;
     __libc_pread; __libc_pread64; __libc_pwrite; __libc_pwrite64;
     __waitid; __pselect;
in their diff-CYGNUS-to-REDHAT.patch. We really should add such changes
into this weekends glibc build. That will allow JDK 1.3.1's pthread
hacks to still work with having the problem discribed at...


I'll try a build with this patch tonight against current glibc cvs.
Currently I have problems with openoffice still quiting out automatically
on the first startup. I know with Kevin Hendricks oo build I did 
verify that this problem seems to be coupled to whether OO finds and
uses JDK on installation. If you don't allow JDK to be found and used
the problem never occurs.

Reply to: