From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LSCF5-0005Tu-30
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:15 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LSCF2-0005Qc-Nx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:13 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59000 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSCF2-0005QW-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:12 -0500
Received: from [84.20.150.76] (port=57304 helo=narury.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <nchip@kos.to>) id 1LSCF2-0005G8-51
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:22:02 +0200
From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] linux-user/arm  unsupported syscalls
Message-ID: <20090128152202.GA13019@kos.to>
References: <200901222014.39864.dl9pf@gmx.de> <4978D8FB.30801@opensuse.org>
	<20090122210406.GA15463@kos.to> <200901231054.09234.dl9pf@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200901231054.09234.dl9pf@gmx.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Jan-Simon =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6ller?= <dl9pf@gmx.de>


--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:54:09AM +0100, Jan-Simon M=C3=B6ller wrote:
> > debian/arm or debian/armel ? Which specific binaries?
> maemo with some bits of debian/armel

That's hardly "specific binaries", but with my voodoo remote debugging
skillz I think I managed to trace this down. The libattr/libacl you are
using is missing this patch:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=3D5;filename=3Dattr-2.4.32=
-armel.diff;att=3D1;bug=3D421627

--=20
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups

--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJgHgaibPvMsrqrwMRAlN1AJ0ZqxLZQqV4jI8eBtW5a/2dy13XSQCgqBUk
r5DP9QyLLYK1ZTn1GWNzDvw=
=P6qe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--