From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Tue 17 Aug 2004 - 23:45:13 BST
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:22:30PM +0200, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
> On Di, 2004-08-17 at 22:11, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > So you say that setattr (that is already included) is better than
> > > > vproc?
> > >
> > > Ah, i forgot to mention that the version of setattr included with the
> > > stable tools does not allow to change the flags for proc entries, just
> >
> > Ahh ok.
> >
> > > the flags needed for unification. That's why i said you should backport
> > > setattr from the unstable branch.
> >
> > I see. Is the setattr from unstable well tested and backwards compatible?
>
> >From my experience it works with the 2.4 as well as the 2.6 branch and
> i'd say it is very well tested since 2.6 does not really work without
> setattr (or vproc...) and the common way is to use the vprocunhide
> script which uses setattr.
vproc will stop working with 2.6 kernel, once the
backwards compatibility is switched off (legacy mode)
so using setattr is a better choice here ...
> > I do not want to throw something into Debian right now (untested) because
> > we are _very_ close to a release. But I do want support for 2.6 kernel. :)
> > (I have not tested 2.6 kernel yet myself).
>
> (Don't tell Bertl that you didn't test your package ;)
yeah, better keep it secret ;)
best,
Herbert
> Bjoern
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver