i rediffed the vs1.3.9 patch against 2.4.27 -- xfs-support is left out as there were major changes in the kernel-tree. is there any chance that a ready-to-use-ebuild for that makes it into portage? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
It's unlikely. You might want to post the work you have done so far.
Created attachment 39024 [details] vserver-sources-2.4.27.1.3.9.ebuild - the rediffed patch is assumed in FILESDIR, see next attachment. - the old download-location and the old "epatch"-line are left in commented for further reference.
Created attachment 39026 [details] patch-2.4.27-vs1.3.9-tom.diff.bz2 no XFS-support!
I've this version running for well over a week now without problems. However -- in the case it's added to portage -- it should not be unmasked ever. My intention for this is to offer a way for gentoo-users to evaluate vserver with the most recent 2.4-kernel and hopefully establish a vserver-user-base. Vservers have various advantages over chroots and thus may be interesting even for gentoo-development.
Thomas Gatliff - I sincerely hope he doesnt mine me doing this, tgatliff::at::gatliff::dot::com was working on a set of vserver ebuilds with the prospect of becoming the official maintainer for them in the tree. perhaps you might want to get in touch with him? however, these sources, unless they find an active maintainer will not make it into portage in the short term. unfortunately we just don't have the time to maintain them.
in fact thomas emailed my one day prior to the revmoval of vserver-sources from portage (as i was the original author of that ebuilds, as of util-vserver). we were kind of "sharing the work" in order to get vserver-support back in: he's testing the 2.6-series (which will in the near future make this 2.4-version obsolete anyways) and i did the rediff and testing on 2.4. i'd see 2.4.27.1.3.9 as a way to lower the barrier for vserver-interested users not yet running 2.6.
ah I see. excellent. Can I please ask you in that case to move to using kernel-2.eclass and UNIPATCH. you can find examples with gentoo-dev-sources, development-sources (and most other sources). Hopefully we can come to some arrangement were we can keep these up to standard and in the tree.
ok, i'll do the kernel-2.eclass + UNIPATCH adjustments. i also informed thomas via email with a pointer to this bug (dunno if he has a bugzilla-account yet).
Created attachment 39094 [details] vserver-sources-2.4.27.ebuild kernel-2.eclass + UNIPATCH based version. ? is it possible to add the patch-_version_ to EXTRAVERSION too, to get something like "-vserver-1.3.9" ! kernel-2.eclass-issues?: - install_manpages() tries to "make installmandocs"; that target is not available on 2.4-kernels? - install_manpages(): tries to sed -i "scripts/makeman" which is non-existent in 2.4-trees? if something is missing pls let me know (this is my first contact with kernel-2.eclass).
see also: bug #66063 for comment #9: - the man-page-issues are gone (haven't checked but i guess the eclass was updated) - still i'm interested in a possibility to append a version-number to the EXTRAVERSION
I don't think we need two bugs for the same thing *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 66063 ***
it's not the same thing -- unfortunately kernel-2.eclass is a bit to restrictive with the naming, so it's not clear from the ebuild-name. _this_ one is a rediffed devel-version (vs1.3.9).
Closing as WONTFIX because 1.3.9 is vulnerable to GLSA 200407-16 [Bug #56171]. If a fixed development branch is released then please reopen this bug.
