2011/7/14 Petr Salinger <petr.salin...@seznam.cz>: >> I also wonder if we should hunt down the other Linux-specific ELF >> notes in that file. > > I would say we should ignore all Linux-specific ELF notes.
Yes, but that makes the patch more intrusive, increasing the maintenance cost. Is it worth it? > Or in our glibc-ports/kfreebsd/dl-sysdep.c: > > > #ifdef SHARED > # define _dl_sysdep_start _dl_sysdep_start_ignored_code > # include <elf/dl-sysdep.c> > # undef dl_sysdep_start There isn't any real benefit in keeping in sync with upstream dl-sysdep.c, we only get breakage from that. It's a net loss IMHO. I think the macro kludge you describe is much better in the long term. > We should try to include such fix also into > point release of squeeze eglibc. Yes. I would include the RFTSIGZMB fix too. For AT_SECURE how about first using a less-intrusive approach, like the patch I sent, and once it reaches testing backport it to squeeze. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org