* Problem with debian runit package / libowfat
@ 2006-11-22 4:08 Mike Bell
2006-12-05 10:52 ` Gerrit Pape
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Bell @ 2006-11-22 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
runit on debian is linked against libowfat which doesn't understand
large device nums. EOVERFLOW. As a result a root on something with a
large num (like AoE devices on any shelf other than 0) won't be able to
start up runsvdir.
Perhaps a runit-dynamic package linked against glibc could be created?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with debian runit package / libowfat
2006-11-22 4:08 Problem with debian runit package / libowfat Mike Bell
@ 2006-12-05 10:52 ` Gerrit Pape
2006-12-07 18:43 ` Mike Bell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gerrit Pape @ 2006-12-05 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 08:08:58PM -0800, Mike Bell wrote:
> runit on debian is linked against libowfat which doesn't understand
> large device nums. EOVERFLOW. As a result a root on something with a
> large num (like AoE devices on any shelf other than 0) won't be able to
> start up runsvdir.
It's linked against the dietlibc, not libowfat.
> Perhaps a runit-dynamic package linked against glibc could be created?
Hmm, I would prefer to adapt the dietlibc. Do you know what the glibc
does differently?, on what system/architecture are you having this
failure?, where does the EOVERFLOW happen?
Thanks, Gerrit.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with debian runit package / libowfat
2006-12-05 10:52 ` Gerrit Pape
@ 2006-12-07 18:43 ` Mike Bell
2006-12-07 18:46 ` Paul Jarc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Bell @ 2006-12-07 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:52:03AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> It's linked against the dietlibc, not libowfat.
Oops, think-o.
> Hmm, I would prefer to adapt the dietlibc. Do you know what the glibc
> does differently?, on what system/architecture are you having this
> failure?, where does the EOVERFLOW happen?
Linux. Architecture doesn't matter.
The stat syscall can return a 32bit device number now that linux has
16bit majors and 16bit minors. Fixing it would involve expanding struct
stat by two bytes for every user, which is why I didn't report it on the
dietlibc list, I'm not sure it belongs in _diet_libc.
dietlibc returns EOVERFLOW whenever the major or minor is too big to fit
in an 8bit int.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with debian runit package / libowfat
2006-12-07 18:43 ` Mike Bell
@ 2006-12-07 18:46 ` Paul Jarc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2006-12-07 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike Bell <mike@mikebell.org> wrote:
> Fixing it would involve expanding struct stat by two bytes for every
> user, which is why I didn't report it on the dietlibc list, I'm not
> sure it belongs in _diet_libc.
The "diet" refers to the goal of small *code* size, not data. I
wouldn't expect any objections on those grounds, and even the
transition should be relatively painless, since dietlibc is usually
linked statically.
paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-07 18:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-11-22 4:08 Problem with debian runit package / libowfat Mike Bell
2006-12-05 10:52 ` Gerrit Pape
2006-12-07 18:43 ` Mike Bell
2006-12-07 18:46 ` Paul Jarc
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).