On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:59 AM Sören Tempel wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. Does this patch work? It tweaks the handling of
> > SYS_SECCOMP to be specific to that constant.
>
> Yes, your patch works for me too on Alpine Linux Edge.
Thanks. Committed to mainline.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for the info. Does this patch work? It tweaks the handling of
> SYS_SECCOMP to be specific to that constant.
Yes, your patch works for me too on Alpine Linux Edge.
Thanks!
Greetings,
Sören
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:32 AM Sören Tempel wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Given that pretty much every one of these musl patches has led to
> > problems on some glibc systems, it would be very nice if you could do
> > some testing with glibc. Thanks.
>
> Sorry, my bad.
>
> I just teste
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Given that pretty much every one of these musl patches has led to
> problems on some glibc systems, it would be very nice if you could do
> some testing with glibc. Thanks.
Sorry, my bad.
I just tested this on Arch Linux and it compiles fine with the patch.
> Can you
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 9:47 AM wrote:
>
> From: Sören Tempel
>
> This patch addresses two minor compatibility issues with musl libc:
>
> * On some architecture (e.g. PowerPC), musl has more than one field
> prefixed with st_{a,m,c}tim in struct stat. This causes the sed(1)
> invocation to no
From: Sören Tempel
This patch addresses two minor compatibility issues with musl libc:
* On some architecture (e.g. PowerPC), musl has more than one field
prefixed with st_{a,m,c}tim in struct stat. This causes the sed(1)
invocation to not work correctly (since it will only replace the first
