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

Re: [Jackit-devel] Re: Re: little NPTL SCHED_FIFO test program

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 21:11, Robert Jordens wrote:
> [witten after a few beers and a birthday party at 3 am, so please excuse
> misleading wording]
> Hello!
> [Fri, 20 Aug 2004] Lee Revell wrote:
> > Argh, they will not even fix it in unstable?  What is the point of
> > having an unstable distribution?!?.  Can we at least add the fix to
> > experimental?
> It's always an additional commitment and more work to maintain another
> branch. Since the NPTL bug is not considered important enough there is 
> no need to dedicate a branch to it. This is just coherent.
> > If not now, then when do you expect this to be in unstable?
> Personal judgement: With about 90% probability after the first release of 
> sarge.

I was looking for a timeframe.  Weeks, months, years?  The debian
release cycle is notoriously slow.

> <http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/nptl/pthread_create.c.diff?cvsroot=glibc&r2=1.32&r1=1.31&f=u>
> Assuming thet his "if (0 && ..." was not just "defensive programming", 
> get a supportive quote from him.

OK, makes sense.  All I know is, it seems to work.  The author of the
code would certainly know better than me.  We can just work around this
on our code.  At least the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL hack will no longer be


Reply to: