From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n5FA5l0Q098566 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:05:49 -0500 Received: from hall.aurel32.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EA9332F6F79 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hall.aurel32.net (hall.aurel32.net [88.191.82.174]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wcQSit3BTS2mH95c for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:05:58 +0200 From: Aurelien Jarno Subject: Re: Bug#531950: attr: FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD Message-ID: <20090615100558.GA23442@volta.aurel32.net> References: <364917872.6081221244543493694.JavaMail.root@mail-au.aconex.com> <20090609121042.GA28666@infradead.org> <20090614163517.GA19259@volta.aurel32.net> <20090614203309.GA1929@infradead.org> <20090614205628.GB25535@hall.aurel32.net> <20090615094244.GA4793@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Petr Salinger Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 531950-quiet@bugs.debian.org, Nathan Scott , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:26:12PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:56:28PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> Would such a patch be accepted more easily than the ENODATA patch? >> >> I don't think it's an except but in addition. Wherever we do a strerror >> in the attr code we will have to special case ENODATA on Linux and only >> there. Independent of that I think we would better of using the raw >> syscalls in platforms already using binary namespaces rather than double >> translation. Note that this is only applicable for the IRIX-heritage >> attr_* routines exports by libattr, not the *xattr routines it also >> exports. > > We would really appreciate to have either "#ifdef ENODATA" or > "#ifdef __linux__" applied to current debian version of package. > The debian maintainer does not want to diverge from (future) upstream, > which is quite understandable. > > Would be possible to special case ENODATA as 1st step and postpone > adding of syscall support later ? Fully agreed. Please find below the __linux_ version of the patch. --- attr-2.4.43.orig/getfattr/getfattr.c +++ attr-2.4.43/getfattr/getfattr.c @@ -93,8 +93,10 @@ const char *strerror_ea(int err) { +#ifdef __linux__ if (err == ENODATA) return _("No such attribute"); +#endif return strerror(err); } only in patch2: unchanged: --- attr-2.4.43.orig/setfattr/setfattr.c +++ attr-2.4.43/setfattr/setfattr.c @@ -66,8 +66,10 @@ const char *strerror_ea(int err) { +#ifdef __linux__ if (err == ENODATA) return _("No such attribute"); +#endif return strerror(err); } -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs