On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728772 > > points out that libvirt commit 1c93fbbb pulled in a gnulib > > regression that broke large file support. > > I had a quick look and rerunning this pulls in quite some auto* changes. > Any pointers how a minimal patch against 0.9.4 should look like that > distributors could apply? Yes, there is a patch attached to that BZ ticket above that is the minimal workaround distros should apply.

On 08/09/2011 08:37 AM, Guido Günther wrote: >On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: >>>Hi Eric, >>> >>>On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728772 >>>>points out that libvirt commit 1c93fbbb pulled in a gnulib >>>>regression that broke large file support. >>> >>>I had a quick look and rerunning this pulls in quite some auto* changes. >>>Any pointers how a minimal patch against 0.9.4 should look like that >>>distributors could apply? >> >>Yes, there is a patch attached to that BZ ticket above that is >>the minimal workaround distros should apply. >Works great. Thanks, That still implies re-running the autotools to convert configure.ac changes over to configure. If you want an absolute minimum patch that does not require the autotools during your distro build, and you are just building for Linux, then it should be sufficient to change your build script to use: ./configure CPPFLAGS=-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64