Bug#226688: libc6: i386: __libc_fork assertion in 2.3.2.ds1-10

[Mark Sheppard <mark@ddf.net>]

On 2004-01-08 (Thursday) at 10:00:23 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:58, Mark Sheppard wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't you just check the
> > > major and minor version numbers and totally ignore the revision number
> > > (i.e. anything beyond the second ".")?  Or if this is something that
> > > changed half way through the 2.5 kernels then you could only check the
> > > revision if major == 2 && minor == 5?
> >
> > No - we often have to check the revision number.  It happens
> > occasionally that there's a big problem in a particular revision and we
> > have to set the minimum to higher than 2.4.x
> >
> > Daniel - Should I work up some hackery to maybe test to see if the
> > revision number overflows the version checking magic?  We could simply
> > refuse to install in that case.
>
> Good idea.  We handle the greater than three dot-separated components
> now; just check if any piece is >255.

That sounds good, it would be far better to refuse to install rather
than hose the system!  Looks like I'll have to install a standard
kernel (or roll my own with a sane EXTRA_VERSION).

Thanks,
Mark.