From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On 22/02/2024 10.57, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:

I guess it's just a semantic debate as to whether this constitutes a
change in behavior.

This would go a lot quicker if you didn’t engage in “semantic debates”.

For me it whole feels like a repeat of systemd when they stupidly picked
a namespace already used by the kernel and wanted the kernel to change
nem of their namespace.

The whole can be solved in the header to define missing macro.
--
//Aho
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On 22/02/24 20:48, J.O. Aho wrote:

On 22/02/2024 10.57, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:

I guess it's just a semantic debate as to whether this constitutes a
change in behavior.

This would go a lot quicker if you didn’t engage in “semantic debates”.

For me it whole feels like a repeat of systemd when they stupidly picked
a namespace already used by the kernel and wanted the kernel to change
nem of their namespace.

The whole can be solved in the header to define missing macro.

Define it to what? That's my original question.

And by who?

BFN. Paul.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:49:19 +0800, Paul Edwards wrote:

On 22/02/24 20:48, J.O. Aho wrote:

On 22/02/2024 10.57, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:

I guess it's just a semantic debate as to whether this constitutes a
change in behavior.

This would go a lot quicker if you didn’t engage in “semantic debates”.

For me it whole feels like a repeat of systemd when they stupidly picked
a namespace already used by the kernel and wanted the kernel to change
nem of their namespace.

The whole can be solved in the header to define missing macro.

Define it to what? That's my original question.

That's up to whomever defines it.

And by who?

That would be you. And /not/ by Linux.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On 22/02/24 22:55, Lew Pitcher wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:49:19 +0800, Paul Edwards wrote:

On 22/02/24 20:48, J.O. Aho wrote:

On 22/02/2024 10.57, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:

I guess it's just a semantic debate as to whether this constitutes a >>>>> change in behavior.

This would go a lot quicker if you didn’t engage in “semantic debates”.

For me it whole feels like a repeat of systemd when they stupidly picked >>> a namespace already used by the kernel and wanted the kernel to change
nem of their namespace.

The whole can be solved in the header to define missing macro.

Define it to what? That's my original question.

That's up to whomever defines it.

And by who?

That would be you. And /not/ by Linux.

That's not correct.

I can't properly define it myself. If I define it
myself, to an arbitrary value, then the ELF executable
will do strange things now or in the future when run
on Linux.

ie if I take over an existing flag or flags, or
choose a currently unused bit.

Again - I've clearly done a really really crappy
job of explaining what I want.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

Is there anyone who actually understands my
suggestion who can translate English to English?

I'll need a translated version for when I speak
to the Austin group otherwise I'll be going around
the exact same circle.

It's possible that I have some "unstated assumptions".
I have found that a problem in the past. But I don't
know what they are until after a lot of discussion.

I can take a guess though.

My goal for PDOS/386 is not to run *ANY* *EXISTING*
Linux ELF binaries.

My goal is to run *SPECIFIC* *FUTURE* Linux ELF
binaries.

Specifically ones linked with PDPCLIB where I have
done very specific things (which I control) so that
THE BINARIES work on BOTH Linux and PDOS/386.

I'm not attempting to create a Linux clone. I'm only
trying to create a very limited clone.

And I'm not trying to get CRs on Linux. I'm only
trying to get CRs on PDOS/386.

Again - I thought I explained it adequately, but of
course I always think that, but this is not the first
time I have been mistaken about what is "clear".

BFN. Paul.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On 23/02/2024 02.56, Paul Edwards wrote:

On 22/02/24 22:55, Lew Pitcher wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:49:19 +0800, Paul Edwards wrote:

And by who?

That would be you. And /not/ by Linux.

I can't properly define it myself. If I define it
myself, to an arbitrary value, then the ELF executable
will do strange things now or in the future when run
on Linux.

Try 0x0

You need to handle it in you own library pdpclib, do not expect others
to change for you think providing a file that isn't the one on disk is ok.
--
//Aho


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux

On 23/02/24 17:25, J.O. Aho wrote:

On 23/02/2024 02.56, Paul Edwards wrote:

On 22/02/24 22:55, Lew Pitcher wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:49:19 +0800, Paul Edwards wrote:

And by who?

That would be you. And /not/ by Linux.

I can't properly define it myself. If I define it
myself, to an arbitrary value, then the ELF executable
will do strange things now or in the future when run
on Linux.

Try 0x0

You need to handle it in you own library pdpclib, do not expect others
to change for you think providing a file that isn't the one on disk is ok.

If it boils down to that, then I will do one of
the things I already mentioned.

I will define it to 0x8000 0000 or 0x4000 0000
or alter the definition of an existing flag
like NOATIME.

It will achieve what I want, even though it is
a bit odd when running on real Linux.

Any suggestions within those parameters?

Otherwise I will just choose one of those things
at random and carry on my merry way.

Probably I will chose 0x8000 0000 as Linux seems
to be working their way up the bits, so I will
take what I need working my way down the bits.

What I don't know yet is whether Linux will throw
an error for the unknown flag (0x8000 0000) or
whether they will in the future put in such a
check.

If they do, I then need to switch to commandeering
NOATIME or whatever and rebuilding my software.

BFN. Paul.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114