This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] ppc64 utmp changes
- From: Ben Collins <bcollins at debian dot org>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>, aj at suse dot de, schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com,Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:36:47 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64 utmp changes
- References: <20020930230034.X3451@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <200210011044.g91AiwF21368@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20021001132650.B3451@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
> > or those file formats have never really been used by 64-bit programs. If
> > either of those is so, does that mean that noone cares about or ever used
> > the various struct utmp-using ABIs either? Can we really change these ABIs
> > (the size and layout of struct utmp) without versioning?
>
> For sparc64 it can be changed without versioning, Ben, do you agree?
> For x86-64, as Andreas said, I believe everybody can recompile glibc
> and recompile those few programs which access wtmp etc. files directly
> (SysVinit, anything else?) and > /var/log/wtmp.
> ppc64 initiated this, so is ok with this change too.
> The only question is s390x, Martin?
Definitely for sparc64 (atleast where I am concerned). I don't know of
any widespread use of utmp using 64bit apps on sparc64. Those folks that
built their own sparc64 64bit systems from scratch can easily deal with
the upgrade.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/