On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:10:08 +0100 Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi articulated:
On 22.10.2010, at 19.22, Paul Howarth wrote:
In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to fallocate64() and the program can't be linked (fails to find symbol fallocate64). See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/500487
Yeah, I knew about it happening also on Ubuntu 9.10.
Attached patch detects fallocate() more robustly to guard against this problem.
A lot of code just to work around a bug that apparently only exists in Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11. Is there a reason for anyone to be actually using either of them? I was thinking about just ignoring this problem.
Assuming that this is truly an isolated issue; it is my belief that creating a specific patch to address this issue might lead to a regression error at some point down the line. I would suggest that you simply ignore the issue and let the end user properly update his system to eliminate the problem. Perhaps placing something in the Dovecot documentation to this effect would be advisable. If the end user wishes to patch their system to do an end run around this issue, they are free to do so. However, they should be forewarned that they are doing so at their own peril and sans any support from you if a problem(s) occur.
Just my 2¢.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.