On 12/05/2020 15:33, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.05.2020 16:19, Wei Liu wrote: >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:58:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> now that I've been able to do a little bit of work from the office >>> again, I've run into a regression from b72682c602b8 "scripts: Use >>> stat to check lock claim". On one of my older machines I've noticed >>> guests wouldn't launch anymore, which I've tracked down to the >>> system having an old stat on it. Yes, the commit says the needed >>> behavior has been available since 2009, but please let's not forget >>> that we continue to support building with tool chains from about >>> 2007. >>> >>> Putting in place and using newer tool chain versions without >>> touching the base distro is pretty straightforward. Replacing the >>> coreutils package isn't, and there's not even an override available >>> by which one could point at an alternative one. Hence I think >>> bumping the minimum required versions of basic tools should be >>> done even more carefully than bumping required tool chain versions >>> (which we've not dared to do in years). After having things >>> successfully working again with a full revert, I'm now going to >>> experiment with adapting behavior to stat's capabilities. Would >>> something like that be acceptable (if it works out)? >> Are you asking for reverting that patch? > Well, I assume the patch has its merits, even if I don't really > understand what they are from its description.
What is in any away unclear about the final paragraph in the commit message? > I'm instead asking > whether something like the below (meanwhile tested) would be > acceptable. Not really, seeing as removing perl was the whole point. ~Andrew
