Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4TEHSnC014255 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 07:17:28 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g4TEHSIg014254 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 07:17:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (postfix@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.31.123]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g4TEHKnC014228 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 07:17:20 -0700 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4043) id 15A7B4FCFC; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:18:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:18:47 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Nathan Scott , "Ralf G. R. Bergs" , Jan Kara , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] Re: Problems compiling Samba 2.2.4 with quota under Debian stable Message-ID: <20020529141847.GC8372@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020529085106.A207538@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20020528160447.Q13933@va.samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020528160447.Q13933@va.samba.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Hello, > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:51:06AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > Known problem, with no fix yet AFAIK. It is not really related to > > XFS at all, you're tripping it in XFS because we include some quite > > recent quota patches in the XFS CVS trees (ie. the patches that've > > just recently gone into 2.5.17) - you will find that you can no > > longer build Samba with quota enabled if you have Linus' current > > 2.5 headers below /usr/include/linux also. > > > > This is a problem which needs to be fixed in Samba sources, they'll > > need to have a local quota header file, rather than using the ones > > below /usr/include/linux > > Why should we have to have a local quota header file ? Why can't > it work on Linux like every other UNIX system - we don't need a > local quota.h for them ? > > This is not a Samba problem IMHO., but a Linux one. I don't think it's important whose problem it is but how to solve it :). Including kernel headers isn't wise technique but I understand that glibc contains only old header file and so Samba had to get the definitions elsewhere... When I was implementing user space tools handling quota I was thinking where to get the headers and finally I decided that having own local include is the easiest way (this way quota tools are able to handle all existing kernels independently of the kernel used during the time of compilation). I think that this way would be also the most reliable for Samba at least until the headers in glibc are changed to newer ones... Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs