Does this mean you were already running with the latest version of everything
when you saw the problem?
If so, I have to leave this up to the capable folks in the Melbourne office.
Steve
> >> Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > For test 51 to run you need a kernel with the acl code built in
>
> CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
>
> > there is a posix_acl config option near the top of filesystems
> > config. Also, for both tests do you have the latest version of the
> > acl and attribute commands installed?
>
> --- snip! ---
> == dist, log is Logs/dist
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/attr/build/tar/attr-1.0.1.t
> ar.gz
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/attr/build/rpm/attr-1.0.1-0
> .src.rpm
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/attr/build/rpm/attr-1.0.1-0
> .i386.rpm
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/attr/build/rpm/attr-devel-1
> .0.1-0.i386.rpm
> attr-1.0.1-0
> attr-devel-1.0.1-0
> --- snip! ---
>
> --- snip! ---
> == dist, log is Logs/dist
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/acl/build/tar/acl-1.0.1.tar
> .gz
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/acl/build/rpm/acl-1.0.1-0.s
> rc.rpm
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/acl/build/rpm/acl-1.0.1-0.i
> 386.rpm
> Wrote: /v/techno/fs1/proj/marcelo/xfs/user-space/acl/build/rpm/acl-devel-1.0
> .1-0.i386.rpm
> acl-1.0.1-0
> acl-devel-1.0.1-0
> --- snip! ---
>
> I compile xfsprogs and xfsprogs-devel, install both, compile attr,
> attr-devel, install both, compile acl and acl-devel and install both.
> The two log file snippets above correspond to the compilation and
> installation of these two packages. The code is checked out arround
> 3:00 GMT (this particular case would be arround 2001-02-05 03:00 GMT)
>
> > These have been broken out into seperate directories under the cmd
> > tree.
>
> Yeah, I didn't notice before because my compilation/installation script
> broke because of the reorganization.
>
> > xfsdump-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm
>
> Also installed.
>
> --
> Marcelo
|