Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:51:19 -0700
From:      John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Cc:        Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP: sigset_t changes committed
Message-ID:  <19990930135119.29632@hydrogen.fircrest.net>
In-Reply-To: <19990930195614.2834A1CA7@overcee.netplex.com.au>; from Peter Wemm on Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 03:56:14AM %2B0800
References:  <19990930003214.58194@hydrogen.fircrest.net> <19990930195614.2834A1CA7@overcee.netplex.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm scribbled this message on Oct 1:
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> [..]
> > might as well say goodbye to ever getting freebsd's userland running
> > under NetBSD which is how our nice Alpha port got started...  this
> > NEEDS to be fixed...
> 
> NetBSD have just done exactly the same sort of thing.  And for that matter
> it makes no difference for that sort of thing as we used a different syscall
> set explicitly in that case.
> 
> The only "problem" is that -current libc is tightly bound to the -current
> kernel.
> 
> How about this as a cheap and robust "solution":
> - when building libc, have an option that allows sigaction etc to be
> *wrappers* that emulate their functionality through osigaction().  This
> means dropping sigaction etc from the assembler function list and use some
> C stubs instead.  Call this (say) -DANCIENTTOOLS for the Makefiles.
> The objective would be to try not to generate a binary that requires syscalls
> that are not present on something like 2.2.x.

[...]

I completely agree...  this isn't a problem that takes much work to
solve..

> So far we've been lucky.  None of the 40-50 odd new syscalls we've added
> over the last few years have been used in building the tree, so folks have

yes, we have had it very easy, it's surprising that we have made it
this long w/ the build system we have...

> had it easy for a while.  Marcel has done *nothing* wrong.  This was bound
> to blow up sooner or later when we added a new syscall that was used during
> the build.
> 
> So how about folks get off Marcel's back and stop running around like it's
> the end of the world and lets do a proper workaround.  Rest assured, this
> will be resolved with a workaround of some sort or other and will be a
> 4.0-RELEASE requirement that 3.x-stable can do a source upgrade to 4.0.

the reason I was on Marcel's back was because of his statement that he
WOULD NOT do ANYTHING to fix the problem, and that as far as he was
considered, that's life and deal w/ it...  if he had said, oh, I'll look
for a solution to the problem, I wouldn't of been so hard on him...

so, is Marcel going to do the work for this? or will this have to be
passed to someone like you or myself?

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 408 975 9651
  Cu Networking					  

  "The soul contains in itself the event that shall presently befall it.
  The event is only the actualizing of its thought." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990930135119.29632>