Re: LFS vs procfs on SunOS

["Filip Hajny" <filip%joyent.com@localhost>]

On 8. 3. 2012, at 9:42, David Holland wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:36:01AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
>> I don't see any reason to cater to this stupidity.
> 
> That is, patching programs to use open64() and the rest of that
> nonsense is a nonstarter, hacking programs to compile with small off_t
> and fail randomly on large files is a bad idea. That leaves patching
> programs to avoid the procfs headers, which is probably not going to
> be very possible/effective, or ignoring the problem.
> 
> I guess another option is to teach gcc fixincludes to patch up Sun's
> mess, but that's not likely to be fun.

FYI I passed this to our kernel engineering team and we came up with a better 
approach. Of course, this has the "screw Oracle" kind of implicit note attached.

https://www.illumos.org/issues/2410

-F