search for: betaspec

Nick, Do you happen to know why the version reported in 'dwarfdump --eh-frame' for object files now differs when compiled with and without -g? The test used in FSF gcc's configure produces a diff of.. % diff -u conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump conftest.o.g0.stripped.dwarfdump --- conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump 2015-04-10 21:43:15.000000000 -0400 +++

...quot; as it happened with samba 4.3.6? Why > complicate  > the tree? Binaries that should not be executed by the user/administrator do not belong in bin, they belong in libexec, per long tradition (but not the current FHS, oddly). It is in the 3.0 rc2 version here: https://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/fhs/fhs/ch04s07.html If you need a rationale, it could be not to put in the path things that the admin or user should not directly execute.  Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team https://samba.org Samba Development and Supp...

...t cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Rafael Espíndola > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 2:07 PM > To: Jack Howarth > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] __eh_frame info changes in Clang? > > That looks like a bug. > > From > > http://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/lsb/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core- > generic/ehframechpt.html > > Version > A 1 byte value that identifies the version number of the frame > information structure. This value shall be 1. > > This was introduced by r211272. We should probably be producing 1/3/4 > for .debug_fr...

>>> When building Samba 4.4.0rc and then doing an install to >>> /usr/local/samba, a directory "libexec" is being created which then >>> contains a "samba" directory with a single "smbspool_krb5_wrapper" >>> file inside (/usr/local/samba/libexec/samba/ >>> smbspool_krb5_wrapper). This is not very clean, is it? >>>

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 05:31:52PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Thanks - I can see how those would work once you understand what is >> broken on the target system and why, but is there a way that programs >> 'should' be written to run with/without systemd? That just happened

I''ve removed all the LIBLEAF bits in this version, but kept passing the libfsimage plugin location via compiler command line. If there''s a better way to do this, I''m certainly open to it. But looking at it further today I think this isn''t too horrible. Matt