Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 ------- Additional Comments From nacc@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-24 18:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) <snip> > Check out my diffs and resulting spec, srpm and tarball here: > > http://wilsonet.com/packages/libhugetlbfs/ > > (I also tweaked the Makefile to put hugetlbd in sbin from the get go) <snip> These generally look sane (in particular because they seem to work :), but we'll probably need -p1 applicable patches and an attribution line (Signed-off-by), ideally sent to libhugetlbfs-devel<at>lists<dot>sourceforge<dot>net. > Ack, I'm seeing another potential issue w/the current packaging breakdown, in > that as it stands right now, 32-bit and 64-bit libhugetlbfs packages would > conflict with one another, as both contain hugetlbd. I know they're actually > the same file, but we'll need to work around that somehow -- possibly yet > another sub-package... I posted on that exact issue a few minutes before you. Even if we had a separate 64-bit hugetlbd, it wouldn't make any difference, right? Because both would be installed in /usr/sbin, or wherever? I don't know of any distros that differentiate between 32-bit and 64-bit executables via the path, at least (in contrast to libraries, for instance). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review