On 29 May 2011 16:35, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, certainly. These things happen :) >
Agreed. Just rebuilding Heimdal with the new patch now. > > - do the semi-ugly solution an define VIOC_SYSCALL_PROC differently on > > Hurd (see also [1], "missing _IOT" section, for an explanation of what > > can and cannot be done in ioctl's on Hurd). I attached a new version of > > patch 043_hurd_ioctl. > > Sure, it looks like that will work. From the perspective of OpenAFS and > other AFS implementations, it is a little annoying to have to make a > special case for Hurd for the ioctl number if and when Hurd support is > added... but I'd expect a lot of things to require Hurd special-cases, > anyway. > For references, there is also the following bug that discusses AFS with Heimdal: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324342 and this even older bug report for The Hurd support: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=113317 Will this be sent to Heimdal upstream, btw? This probably would have > gotten noticed sooner if this had been sent there, and I don't know if > they have opinions on this. Do you think The Hurd patches are of sufficient quality to be submitted upstream? -- Brian May <[email protected]>
