Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes

Oliver Falk
2007-09-18T15:45:35Z

On 09/18/2007 04:07 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:47:31AM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>> Hi Oliver!
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>>>> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
>>>> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the same
>>>> 'ordering' of the syscalls upstream and add the new syscalls that we had
>>>> not in place, but are now upstream to the end of our 'old' list.
>>>> ...
>>> I just checked:
>>>
>>> It seems Debian didn't patch them into the kernel at all, and since two
>>> months Debian unstable ships kernel 2.6.22 with the upstream syscall
>>> numbers.
>> That's possible a problem. Right. Someone with contacts to Debian here?
>> If Debian hasn't rebuilt glibc against the new headers, we could change
>> it without problems.
>> ...
>
> According to the Debian auto-builder database [1], the Alpha glibc
> package in Debian unstable has been rebuilt 8 times since the 2.6.22
> kernel packages entered Debian unstable.
>
> And it's not only Debian, at least Gentoo also offers an Alpha port.

Well. As I said. I'll step back and let it be as it is. Debian was to
fast. :-)

-of