From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 25 20:17:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14077
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:17:22 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14049
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:17:15 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au)
Message-Id: <199711260417.UAA14049@hub.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA195567796; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:16:36 +1100
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: issetugid(2)
To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:16:36 +1100 (EDT)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971125175143.2423C-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Nov 25, 97 05:59:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

where did this syscall come from ?  Someone doing OpenBSD compatibility ?

In some mail from Julian Elischer, sie said:
> 
> This has broken all sorts of things here.
> I thought that the syscall interface for 2.2.x was being kept 
> unchanged.
> This call makes it impossible to run binaries (e.g. vi)
> compiled under 2.2.5+ on a 2.2.2 machine.
> Surely the library routine that calls this
> should cope with it not being in the kernel,
> in the same way that Peter did his new syscalls.
> 
> was this considered teh 'correct thing to do?'
> was there discussion?
> 
> I must have dismissed it and now it's bitten me :(
> 
> I have many machiens on people's desks here running everything
> from 2.1.0 to 2.2.5, but teh chroot environments they use are all
> 2.2.2. I was upgrading the chroot environment to 2.2.5(+) but
> it can only be used on the newest machines, and I don't want to have to
> upgrade all those machines..!
> 
> Peter, how did you trap your new syscalls? (i can't even remember
> which they were)
> I'll see if I can work up a similar workaround if I can find a reference.
> 
> 
> julian
> (GRRR)