forwarded 377697 http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1739
thanks
Hi Steve,
Absolutely. A preliminary patch is attached; if upstream is
interested in
this approach, please give me the opportunity to clean it up a bit
more and
port all of the comm implementations to it, but otherw
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:48:09PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > epoll is specific to Linux 2.6. You should not expect it to be available on
> > buildds for *any* architecture (except amd64) until after the release of
> > etch
Hi Steve,
Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 00:34, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
It shouldn't have to be; the consequences of installing a package
depending
on 2.6-specific features onto a sarge system running a 2.4 kernel
are clear,
and any package maintainer should be ashamed to ship a package wit
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:31:54AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 00:34, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> >It shouldn't have to be; the consequences of installing a package
> >depending
> >on 2.6-specific features onto a sarge system running a 2.4 kernel
> >are clear
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:18:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > since upstream is not willing to integrate a runtime check in the short
> > term and I cannot support such an intrusive unofficial patch (which, BTW,
> > does not exist at all ATM).
>
> Why do you say that it would be intrusive?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 06:18, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:31:54AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
The answer (not only the one from Marco), was that etch will not
support 2.4 anymore.
"Kernel version 2.4 is depreca
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> >Why do you say that it would be intrusive? It looks to me like a
> >simple
> >change to support building more than one select interface at a
> >time, and
> >using the best one that works. If such a patch existed, would you
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 06:18, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> >On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:31:54AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> >>The answer (not only the one from Marco), was that etch will not
> >>support 2.4 anymore.
> >
Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 22:48, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Could user application 'deal somehow' with 2.4 kernels making the
administrator aware that they will need a 2.6 kernel to work at all?
When will you make the adminis
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:18:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> in that thread saying it was ok to drop 2.4 support was from Moritz
> Muehlenhoff; but you also got feedback from Stephen Gran and Mark Brown,
> saying that a runtime check would be preferable.)
Is there a suitable 2.4 based test s
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 22:48, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> >On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> >>Could user application 'deal somehow' with 2.4 kernels making the
> >>administrator aware that t
11 matches
Mail list logo
