tags 403332 + patch
thanks
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:27:01PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4878 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > Ohh. Thanks a lot then!
>
> The problem is resolved by the syscall_shiny14e.h from
> http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental/SYSCALL/syscall_shiny14e.
Le 4878 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> Ohh. Thanks a lot then!
The problem is resolved by the syscall_shiny14e.h from
http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental/SYSCALL/syscall_shiny14e.h
With this, it works with debian GCC 4.1.
Regards.
--
Daniel 'NebuchadnezzaR' Dehennin
Récupérer ma
Hi
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 07:31:33AM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > I see. Thanks. Would it be possible for you to try to compile it
> > with 4.1 as well? If that works I can upload this correction to
> > unstable at once.
>
> Well, my package
Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> I see. Thanks. Would it be possible for you to try to compile it
> with 4.1 as well? If that works I can upload this correction to
> unstable at once.
Well, my package is build with gcc-4.1, the 4.2 test was to see if
things work out of the box wit
Hi
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:16:21PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > Now I'm confused. What did not work with 4.2?
>
> Sorry, the unmodified debian source package does not work with
> gcc-4.2.
I see. Thanks. Would it be possible for you to try
Hi
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:39:58PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > I have a question about the other part of the patch, and that
> > is the removal of the useless syscall things thing. Is that
> > needed for this to work?
>
> Yes, if you disa
Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> Now I'm confused. What did not work with 4.2?
Sorry, the unmodified debian source package does not work with
gcc-4.2.
--
Daniel 'NebuchadnezzaR' Dehennin
Récupérer ma clef GPG:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x2A408F69
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Le 4877 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> I have a question about the other part of the patch, and that
> is the removal of the useless syscall things thing. Is that
> needed for this to work?
Yes, if you disable the alternative syscall with the use of dietlibc,
gcc complains that syscall
Le 4859 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> Hi again
Hello,
> Now I know that gcc 4.2 is not generally available unfortunatly
> so that is not an option...
I tried with experimental gcc-4.2 and the problem persists.
> I wonder which alternative that is best. To disable optimisation or
> r
Hi Daniel
Thanks a lot for your help.
I have a question about the other part of the patch, and that
is the removal of the useless syscall things thing. Is that
needed for this to work?
The other question is if a condition about gcc >= 4.1 was needed
or if gcc-4.1 was enough?
Regards,
// Ola
O
Hi
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:43:45AM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:16:06PM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> >>Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >>>Hi
> >...CUT...
> >
> >>Unfortunately I have no idea how to use the Debian BTS (and I
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:16:06PM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi
...CUT...
Unfortunately I have no idea how to use the Debian BTS (and I'm not a
Debian user nor developer, so it would be somewhat strange if the report
came from me). If
Hi
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:16:06PM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >Hi
...CUT...
> Unfortunately I have no idea how to use the Debian BTS (and I'm not a
> Debian user nor developer, so it would be somewhat strange if the report
> came from me). If you give me a
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:17:52AM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi again
Now I know that gcc 4.2 is not generally available unfortunatly
so that is not an option...
I wonder which alternative that is best. To disable optimisation or
remove
Hi
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:17:52AM +0100, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >Hi again
> >
> >Now I know that gcc 4.2 is not generally available unfortunatly
> >so that is not an option...
> >
> >I wonder which alternative that is best. To disable optimisation or
> >remove -
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi again
Now I know that gcc 4.2 is not generally available unfortunatly
so that is not an option...
I wonder which alternative that is best. To disable optimisation or
remove --enable-apis=NOLEGACY... For sparc only of course.
I don't think the latter is sufficient. If v
Hi again
Now I know that gcc 4.2 is not generally available unfortunatly
so that is not an option...
I wonder which alternative that is best. To disable optimisation or
remove --enable-apis=NOLEGACY... For sparc only of course.
In unstable this will be solved when gcc-4.2 enters the archives
but
Hi
Really good to know. Then it is a problem for sparc with gcc 4.1.
I'll see if I can get this kind of update into etch.
Regards,
// Ola
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 05:27:52PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4856 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > Hello
>
> Hello,
>
> > Can it be the
Le 4856 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> Hello
Hello,
> Can it be the --enable-apis=NOLEGACY ?
The problem seems to come from the --enable-apis=NOLEGACY, without it
works.
#vservers people try to figure out what's the problem, finally I
compile the mainline and the debian util-vserver
Hello
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:57:46PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Le 4855 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> > Hi
>
> Hello,
>
> > So I think you have a kernel problem here.
>
> I made some test with mainline util-vserver and it works.
Interesting! The only patch that is applied
Le 4855 Septembre 1993, Ola Lundqvist a tapoté:
> Hi
Hello,
> So I think you have a kernel problem here.
I made some test with mainline util-vserver and it works.
I compile util-vserver 0.30.212 with debian dietlibc and debian
libeecrypt and the vhashify works, maybe a 32/64 bits problem ?
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Package: util-vserver
> Version: 0.30.212-1
> Severity: normal
...
> Versions of packages util-vserver depends on:
> ii debconf 1.5.10 Debian configuration management
> sy
> ii iproute
Hi
Most of them have reason 'operation not supported'.
It is the following vserver kernel syscall that return this information:
/** \brief Returns information about attributes and assigned context of a
file.
* \ingroup syscalls
*
* This function returns the VC_IATTR_XXX f
Hi
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:22:15PM +0100, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I attach the verbose output of vhashify, it seems that everything is
> skipped.
Seems so yes.
Can it be related to that we use beecrypt6 instead of beecrypt2...?
Probably not but maybe.
Can you increase the verbos
24 matches
Mail list logo
