Re: [Evolution] kernel 2.5 and evolution

[Ronald Kuetemeier <ronald kuetemeier com>]

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