Re: [Evolution] kernel 2.5 and evolution

[Chris Toshok <toshok ximian com>]

I must be missing something, but what on earth is this fix supposed to
accomplish?  It actually fixes something?

I can see doing something like:

if (getpeername (GIOP_CONNECTION_GET_FD(fd_cnx),
                 (struct sockaddr *)&fd_cnx->u.usock, &n)) < 0)
        fn_cnx->u.usock.sun_path[0] = '\0';

but blindly clobbering the path to the socket on the other end seems
like a bad idea.

Chris

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 21:43, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:41:43PM +0200, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > By the way, your patch is included in Debian unstable
> > [liborbit0-0.5.17-5]:
> >
> >
> > --- orbit-0.5.17.orig/src/IIOP/connection.c
> > +++ orbit-0.5.17/src/IIOP/connection.c
> > @@ -459,6 +459,7 @@
> >      fd_cnx->u.usock.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
> >      getpeername(GIOP_CONNECTION_GET_FD(fd_cnx),
> >         (struct sockaddr *)&fd_cnx->u.usock, &n);
> > +    fd_cnx->u.usock.sun_path[0] = '\0';
> >      break;
> >
> >  #ifdef HAVE_IPV6
> >
> > It may not be the correct fix but at least it solves the immediate
> > problem.
> It is the only place to fix it without interfering with other programs,
> that's why I did fixed it there.
> Good to see that some distributions prefer a stable system.
> Ronald
> > Cheers,
> >
> >     MikaL
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:23, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Joaquim Fellmann wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 02:13, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry but _NO_ it's not 2.5, Gnome is broken,
> > > > > you can read all about it and get a patch on the evolution-hackers list.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong too.
> > > > It seems to be Orbit assuming a kernel routine to return some value but
> > > > receiving something else. 
> > > > Actually it was a kernel bug (that got fixed) on which Orbit was
> > > > relying.
> > > > Problem is that Orbit didn't get fixed.
> > > Maybe you should read the thread on evolution-hackers,and then contact some kernel hackers, Alan, Dave 
> > > and Al come to mind.
> > > My patch resets new 2.5 behavior for/in Orbit to 2.4 behavior. But the real problem is within Gnome, so 
> > > far I only hear from the Gnome/Orbit maintainers it's the Kernel without any proof.  Just saying so is 
> > > not enough, I know it's kind of hard to find a problem in a few hundred thousand kernel and 
> > > Gnome/evolution source lines. Been there done that.  And if you take a look at the Gnome 2.X source you 
> > > might find that it's mood to talk about this any further, if you understand the problem.
> > > Ronald 
> > >
> > > > A message on the linux kernel mailing list is refering to a bitkeeper
> > > > changeset at the origin of the "evolution case". Before this changeset
> > > > Evolution is dealing right with kernel 2.5 and after this changeset it
> > > > doesn't work anymore.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-41/0444.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > >
> > > > Joaquim Fellmann <mljf altern org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution