On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:23:35AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi all!
While thinking of multiarch, I remarked that there is no host triplet
for mips(el) using the n32 or the n64 ABIs. Both of them use
mips64-linux-gnu, at least it is what is done in the glibc, the
difference being done
Thiemo Seufer a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:23:35AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi all!
While thinking of multiarch, I remarked that there is no host triplet
for mips(el) using the n32 or the n64 ABIs. Both of them use
mips64-linux-gnu, at least it is what is done in the glibc, the
Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 07:42:25PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
To get things rolling, I have prepared an updated glibc for sarge with
just the timezone data updated to the latest upstream upstream. It is
at http://people.debian.org/~lmamane/glibc/ . Technically right
Sending a copy of this mail to the debian-hppa list. After all this is
the place where I expect to find the most people who know hppa assembly :)
Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
Hi,
It seems the patch to fix the bug#333766 also fixes this bug. I have
built a glibc with gcc-4.0, and executed the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:43:50PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I gave it some thought. Currently we only have mips64{,el}-linux-gnu,
which, to make matters worse, defaults to a n32 compiler with
multilibed o32/n32/n64 libraries. IMHO the best thing to do is to
introduce a completely separate
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:25:00PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Could we consider this bug as fixed, or is it only a postive side effect
of the patch fo bug#333766? I don't speak hppa assembly, so I can't
tell. Daniel, as you written the patch, could you please comment?
I didn't - I'm pretty
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:58:44AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:25:00PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Could we consider this bug as fixed, or is it only a postive side effect
of the patch fo bug#333766? I don't speak hppa assembly, so I can't
tell. Daniel, as
Hi Bdale,
As we finally agreed to use /emul/ia32-libs on amd64 for the 32-bit
libraries, I have updated the glibc so that it now use this new path. I
will upload the packages shortly.
Next step is to upgrade the ia32-libs package in consequence. I have put
on [1] updated version of this
reopen 352597
thanks
It is my understaning that this bug is only partially fixed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 352597
Bug#352597: locale.1.gz: remove quote marks
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:45:13AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:43:50PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I gave it some thought. Currently we only have mips64{,el}-linux-gnu,
which, to make matters worse, defaults to a n32 compiler with
multilibed o32/n32/n64
Your message dated Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:38:27 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#309774: [patch] sysdeps/posix/getaddrinfo.c incorrectly
checks for sa_len
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-03-01 14:54:52 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1254
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* Add sa_len-check.diff (fix sa_len check in getaddrinfo) from upstream.
(Closes: #309774).
Modified:
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-03-01 14:56:05 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1255
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/sa_len-check.diff
Log:
... and the corresponding patch.
Added: glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/sa_len-check.diff
Author: gotom
Date: 2006-03-01 16:17:43 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1256
Added:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.4/
Log:
Add new branch glibc-2.4.
Copied: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.4 (from rev 1255, glibc-package/trunk)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-03-01 16:37:19 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1257
Removed:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/sa_len-check.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
Oops, the sa_len-check patch has been merged
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:14:44PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Um. Actually, I'd like not to have mips64-linux-gnuabi32, but rather
a convention which is acceptable over the whole toolchain.
Why is this not acceptable over the whole toolchain? Alternatively,
if you're only talking about the
As Roland declared glibc 2.4 release plan in the list, I create glibc
2.4 branch for developing debian-glibc package based on glibc-2.4.
You can pull 2.4 branch from:
svn co svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-glibc/glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.4
It's based on the latest svn trunk revision
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-03-01 18:57:39 + (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1258
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk
Log:
Also set LIBDIR using libdir in libc-alt.install
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk
Emmanuel Fuste a écrit :
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.6-2
Followup-For: Bug #340514
The bug is back with 2.3.6-2, I'm lost
Well if it is in version 2.3.6-2, I really doubt it has been
solved in
version 2.3.6-1 as nothing concerning the resolver has been
changed
between these two
I didn't notice this go by earlier, sorry. I already filed this as
#349610, severity normal at the time since amd64 wasn't a release
candidate. I actually filed it against linux-kernel-headers/glibc since
that's where the real problem seems to be, butwhichever way it's handled
is fine so long as
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-03-02 00:28:32 + (Thu, 02 Mar 2006)
New Revision: 1259
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/build.mk
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/i386.mk
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/kfreebsd-i386.mk
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/linux.mk
Your message dated Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:17:13 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#301438: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:17:13 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#347173: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Please note also that I used a modified version of this patch (mainly
because the glibc has changed since you reported the bug) to bootstrap
32-bit and 64-bit glibc/gcc/zlib on mips.
I am glad to hear that you were successful!
You can find all the
25 matches
Mail list logo
