Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Dan Nicholson wrote: I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along. New Glibc's are now up. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/31/07, Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along. New Glibc's are now up. Thanks, Greg. Was there no announcement? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Bruce Dubbs wrote: I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin doing 7.0 type work on trunk? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote: I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin doing 7.0 type work on trunk? I tagged 6.3-rc1. I also added 7.0 to the wiki milestones and 6.3-rc1 and 7.0 to the versions for tickets. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Bruce Dubbs wrote: I tagged 6.3-rc1. I also added 7.0 to the wiki milestones and 6.3-rc1 and 7.0 to the versions for tickets. Thanks. :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 20:49, Dan Nicholson escribió: That doesn't say too much. OK, looking at postix/test-vfork3.c, I think I see the issue. At that point it does 'unsetenv (PATH);' and then tries to execute echo. For this to work, we need to have echo in /bin, which we don't at that point. If /bin/echo - /tools/bin/echo is added to the Essential Symlinks, I bet it will pass. Can you give that a try? Yes, it passes, included using -j3 ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/23/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 20:49, Dan Nicholson escribió: That doesn't say too much. OK, looking at postix/test-vfork3.c, I think I see the issue. At that point it does 'unsetenv (PATH);' and then tries to execute echo. For this to work, we need to have echo in /bin, which we don't at that point. If /bin/echo - /tools/bin/echo is added to the Essential Symlinks, I bet it will pass. Can you give that a try? Yes, it passes, included using -j3 ;-) OK. I'm adding echo and noting that nptl/tst-cancel1 is known to fail. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
El Jueves, 19 de Julio de 2007 00:13, Matthew Burgess escribió:
I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates
(including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No
failures there. I've not done an ICA/farce build though, so that would
certainly be useful.
ICA/farce reports that the next files differ on iteration1Viteration2 but not
in iteration2Viteration3:
/etc/ld.so.cache
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/stdc++.h.gch/0{0,2}g.gch
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1plus
The cc1{,plus} differ was reported some time ago, but the issue was not
resoled:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/059028.html
The build has been done on a new AMD64 machine using Ubuntu-6.06.1 (linux
2.6.15-28-k7 SMP PREEMPT) as host.
Glibc testsuite sow this errors in iteration1:
posix/tst-vfork3.out
nptl/tst-cancell.out
but iteration{2,3} show only:
nptl/tst-cancell.out
Binutils and GCC testsuites are identical on all iterations.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/22/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Jueves, 19 de Julio de 2007 00:13, Matthew Burgess escribió:
I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates
(including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No
failures there. I've not done an ICA/farce build though, so that would
certainly be useful.
ICA/farce reports that the next files differ on iteration1Viteration2 but not
in iteration2Viteration3:
/etc/ld.so.cache
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/stdc++.h.gch/0{0,2}g.gch
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/cc1plus
The cc1{,plus} differ was reported some time ago, but the issue was not
resoled:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/059028.html
Yeah, those look normal. I think you can get the cc1 and cc1plus
differences to go away if you strip at build time. I.e., `make
LDFLAGS=-s'.
Glibc testsuite sow this errors in iteration1:
posix/tst-vfork3.out
nptl/tst-cancell.out
but iteration{2,3} show only:
nptl/tst-cancell.out
I don't know about tst-vfork3, but tst-cancel1 will fail on gcc-4.1.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-July/059606.html
Do you still have the output from tst-vfork3?
Thanks, Manuel.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
El Domingo, 22 de Julio de 2007 20:15, Dan Nicholson escribió: Do you still have the output from tst-vfork3? Do you meant the log output on the posix/tst-vfork3.out file? If the later, I will need to do a new build but stopping it before Glibc sources and build directory deletion. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:56 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30, but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only thing I'd be interested in seeing is glibc-2.5.1 if it happens. Also, I have a couple previously mentioned bootscript patches that I'd like to push in. Those are low priority, though. Without trying to sound ungrateful to people working on LFS: what about GCC 4.2? Any chance of seeing it in LFS any time soon? Dejan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/18/07, Dejan Čabrilo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:56 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30, but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only thing I'd be interested in seeing is glibc-2.5.1 if it happens. Also, I have a couple previously mentioned bootscript patches that I'd like to push in. Those are low priority, though. Without trying to sound ungrateful to people working on LFS: what about GCC 4.2? Any chance of seeing it in LFS any time soon? Yes, but after 6.3. It's a rather large change that requires testing, so it'll have to wait until after the release. The sooner 6.3 is pushed out, the sooner we can start upgrading to gcc-4.2 and glibc-2.6. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/17/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/17/07, Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk ? Should be backwards compatible. A couple I have queued up but keep forgetting to commit them. Add an early script to quiet the kernel log level, then kill the level handling in init.d/modules. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-June/059501.html Second one would kill this bug: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2026 As warned previously, I've added a new script to set the printk level on the console: init.d/consolelog. This is linked at rcsysinit.d/S02consolelog. It reads the LOGLEVEL variable from /etc/sysconfig/console. I added a blurb in chapter07/console.xml about this. Holler if you have any problems. Here's the commit. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-book/2007-July/021153.html I also committed another change to clean up the modules script, which parses /etc/sysconfig/modules. There should be no change in behavior. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-book/2007-July/021154.html If these seem alright, I'll spin a new lfs-bootscripts snapshot. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:57:08PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1 appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial feather!), except that (a) ISTR you weren't very confident about linux-2.6.21 (you quoted Dave Jones's comments, I think) and indeed Linus found its release somewhat painful, and (b) 2.6.22.1 is out (WFM!) and might last a little bit longer (by the time 6.3 comes out, 2.6.21 is unlikely to still be maintained). Matt seems to have solved this bit already. See http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/changeset/8219 Thanks, I hadn't seen an update on -book so I checked the online version and it was a few hours out of date. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
El Miércoles, 18 de Julio de 2007 02:49, Bruce Dubbs escribió: What do you want for a target release date? I would think we could get a -rc1 out in a week if we don't make any changes to the tool chain. Looks good. I will start some ICA/farce and full-testsuites builds. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:55:50 +0200, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will start some ICA/farce and full-testsuites builds. I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates (including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No failures there. I've not done an ICA/farce build though, so that would certainly be useful. Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files. Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the current behavior has the other *proc() functions just using the global pidlist variable created in pidofproc. I prefer Dennis' way and can fix the functions to catch the result in it's own variable, but it could break existing scripts which call pidofproc directly. In most cases, though, pidofproc is being called indirectly through loadproc or statusproc. I did a grep of the bootscripts in both BLFS and LFS and the only files that mention pidofproc are: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/LFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -rl pidofproc *|grep -v svn ChangeLog contrib/lsb/lib/init-functions contrib/lsb-v3/lsb/init-functions contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/lfs-functions contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/template lfs/init.d/functions [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -r pidofproc *|grep -v svn [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ So if these files are all made consistent, there shouldn't be any problem. As far as user's custom scripts go, I'd think a prudent user would check them all when upgrading to a new version of LFS. -- Bruce Well, the contrib/ versions shouldn't even be considered. They provide their own pidofproc() anyway, which already has this change because the spec says so. So the patch is a go already as far as anything within the LFS and BLFS. Another consideration is whether CH are still using the same/similar functions file and scripts. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Plans for LFS-6.3
Hi guys, For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3 release haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one does! I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see this gets done sooner rather than later, I think it only fair I pass on the release management hat to a willing volunteer, as I can't see my personal time freeing up any time soon. I think current trunk is in a pretty good state, and the number of outstanding bugs targeted for the 6.3 release is manageable. So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission? Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission? I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt I have enough free time to tackle it all alone. A release comittee/group might be a good idea for 6.3 since it seems that most of us are in a similar boat time-wise. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission? I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt I have enough free time to tackle it all alone. A release comittee/group might be a good idea for 6.3 since it seems that most of us are in a similar boat time-wise. I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30, but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only thing I'd be interested in seeing is glibc-2.5.1 if it happens. Also, I have a couple previously mentioned bootscript patches that I'd like to push in. Those are low priority, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30, but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only thing I'd be interested in seeing is glibc-2.5.1 if it happens. Also, I have a couple previously mentioned bootscript patches that I'd like to push in. Those are low priority, though. Like everybody else, I'm lacking time. But we do need to get something less-old released. In my case, my limited testing will probably be concentrating on ppc64 for clfs (still trying to find a version of gcc-4.2 which works). And I'm hoping to go on holiday at very short notice. But I can hopefully build a current LFS in the next week (I'd pencilled in a 'bleeding edge' build with gcc-4.2 and glibc-2.6+, but that can wait if we are going to make a release). I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1 appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial feather!), except that (a) ISTR you weren't very confident about linux-2.6.21 (you quoted Dave Jones's comments, I think) and indeed Linus found its release somewhat painful, and (b) 2.6.22.1 is out (WFM!) and might last a little bit longer (by the time 6.3 comes out, 2.6.21 is unlikely to still be maintained). What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Matthew Burgess wrote: Hi guys, For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3 release haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one does! I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see this gets done sooner rather than later, I think it only fair I pass on the release management hat to a willing volunteer, as I can't see my personal time freeing up any time soon. I think current trunk is in a pretty good state, and the number of outstanding bugs targeted for the 6.3 release is manageable. So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission? I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open tickets, but only 5 are assigned to 6.3. Of these, the iproute ticket could either be moved to future or we could send a message to the devs and ask them to repackage the app. I haven't looked into the others in any detail. Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2 and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3. What do you want for a target release date? I would think we could get a -rc1 out in a week if we don't make any changes to the tool chain. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1 appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial feather!), except that (a) ISTR you weren't very confident about linux-2.6.21 (you quoted Dave Jones's comments, I think) and indeed Linus found its release somewhat painful, and (b) 2.6.22.1 is out (WFM!) and might last a little bit longer (by the time 6.3 comes out, 2.6.21 is unlikely to still be maintained). Matt seems to have solved this bit already. See http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/changeset/8219 -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2 and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3. Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze then, especially after Matt brought us up to speed with several packages today. It seems that everyone is generally agreed on that point, so shall we call it official? I'll just see if there isn't a ticket I can take on now... -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/17/07, Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk ? Should be backwards compatible. A couple I have queued up but keep forgetting to commit them. Add an early script to quiet the kernel log level, then kill the level handling in init.d/modules. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-June/059501.html Second one would kill this bug: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2026 Two other things I haven't done, but would like to (meaning, I may punt for now since I haven't tested). Support for IP aliasing/labelling: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-June/059442.html Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files. Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the current behavior has the other *proc() functions just using the global pidlist variable created in pidofproc. I prefer Dennis' way and can fix the functions to catch the result in it's own variable, but it could break existing scripts which call pidofproc directly. In most cases, though, pidofproc is being called indirectly through loadproc or statusproc. The difference is this: current: pidofproc -s $1 # creates pidlist for pid in $pidlist; do ... new: pids=$(pidofproc -s $1) # pidlist is local to pidofproc for pid in $pids; do ... http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2007-July/033304.html That may be able to be split into two parts since the pid file handling is a bug and should be safe to fix. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2 and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3. Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze then, especially after Matt brought us up to speed with several packages today. It seems that everyone is generally agreed on that point, so shall we call it official? I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:16:20PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along. Duly noted. And I don't see why that wouldn't be fine. Especially as once we clear up the remaining tickets we'll probably be asking everyone to run some builds through jhalfs and verify the results. Hopefully we'll have enough testers that adding 2.5.1 won't cause a major delay. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Plans for LFS-6.3
Dan Nicholson wrote: Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files. Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the current behavior has the other *proc() functions just using the global pidlist variable created in pidofproc. I prefer Dennis' way and can fix the functions to catch the result in it's own variable, but it could break existing scripts which call pidofproc directly. In most cases, though, pidofproc is being called indirectly through loadproc or statusproc. I did a grep of the bootscripts in both BLFS and LFS and the only files that mention pidofproc are: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/LFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -rl pidofproc *|grep -v svn ChangeLog contrib/lsb/lib/init-functions contrib/lsb-v3/lsb/init-functions contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/lfs-functions contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/template lfs/init.d/functions [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -r pidofproc *|grep -v svn [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ So if these files are all made consistent, there shouldn't be any problem. As far as user's custom scripts go, I'd think a prudent user would check them all when upgrading to a new version of LFS. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
