Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
# remote status report for
Package: locales ( 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5)
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5
Severity: important
It seems this is the same problem than the following bug report:
From: Elmar Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: infinite loop in caused
On 18/02/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the breakage is just in pthreads, i dont think the libc ABI needs to be
bumped, just the pthread one ? libc provides look ahead stub functions for
pthreads, so it shouldnt be affected by the breakage you've mentioned with
static lock
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5
We did an update of all our machines running debian 3.1.
With the r5 revision there was also an update of libc6.
Installing this update resulted in the following error.
PAM unable to dlopen(/lib/security/pam_ldap.so)
PAM [dlerror:
reassign 411498 libpam-ldap
thanks
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:35:26PM +0100, Leo Eraly wrote:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5
We did an update of all our machines running debian 3.1.
With the r5 revision there was also an update of libc6.
Installing this update resulted in the
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 411498 libpam-ldap
Bug#411498: debian3.1 r5 update of libc6 breaks
Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `libpam-ldap'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Jeff Bailey a écrit :
On 18/02/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the breakage is just in pthreads, i dont think the libc ABI needs to be
bumped, just the pthread one ? libc provides look ahead stub functions for
pthreads, so it shouldnt be affected by the breakage you've
On 19/02/07, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the breakage is just in pthreads, i dont think the libc ABI needs to be
bumped, just the pthread one ? libc provides look ahead stub functions for
pthreads, so it shouldnt be affected by the breakage you've mentioned with
static lock
Jeff Bailey a écrit :
On 19/02/07, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the breakage is just in pthreads, i dont think the libc ABI needs to be
bumped, just the pthread one ? libc provides look ahead stub functions for
pthreads, so it shouldnt be affected by the breakage you've
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-19 16:57:00 +0100 (Mon, 19 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 2003
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
Log:
locales are now sorted UTF-8 first in upstream, so bug#312927 can be closed.
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
On 2/19/07, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the ABI breakage is confirmed. I just remember people siting
some other corner case problems with the ABI they wanted to change.
Now would be a great time to change it all over if we need to do this.
You mean on hppa? Do you remember
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.26
forwarded 367522 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4076
Bug#367522: libc6: nftw / 0 FTW_CHDIR fails with no such file or directory
Noted your statement that Bug has been
Your message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:27:25 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#249986: ld.so crashes by SEGV on custom kernel
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
On Monday 19 February 2007, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On 19/02/07, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the breakage is just in pthreads, i dont think the libc ABI needs to
be
bumped, just the pthread one ? libc provides look ahead stub functions
for
pthreads, so it shouldnt be
Do you know of any other ABI breaks that could be coordinated with
this transition?
No. The last break was GCC 4.1.0 where the calling convention
for passing complex values was corrected.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
National Research Council of
glibc_2.5-0exp6_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
nscd_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb
libnss-dns-udeb_2.5-0exp6_sparc.udeb
libc6-sparcv9b_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb
libc6-pic_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb
libc6_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb
libc6-dev-sparc64_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.5-0exp6_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-0exp6_all.deb
glibc_2.5-0exp6.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp6.diff.gz
glibc_2.5-0exp6.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp6.dsc
libc0.3-dbg_2.5-0exp6_hurd-i386.deb
to
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libc0.3-dev_2.5-0exp6_hurd-i386.deb: package says priority is optional,
override says standard.
libc6-sparc64_2.5-0exp6_sparc.deb: package says priority is optional, override
says
Your message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#98852: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#403270: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#403980: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#381294: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#391858: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#364098: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#394128: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#391372: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#389084: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#347358: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#46175: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#395427: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#405738: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#411132: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#165417: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#377310: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#407540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#172562: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#404379: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#374945: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#397813: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#409288: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 message dated Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:10 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp6
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
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-19 22:13:55 +0100 (Mon, 19 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 2004
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/sysdeps/powerpc.mk
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/sysdeps/s390.mk
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/sysdeps/sparc.mk
Log:
Use relative
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
owner 403270 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#403270: Can't step into libc functions with libc6-dbg
Owner recorded as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(By the way, this Bug is currently marked as done.)
End
FYI: The status of the linux-kernel-headers source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.6.18-6
Current version: 2.6.18-7
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more
FYI: The status of the glibc source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.3.6.ds1-10
Current version: 2.3.6.ds1-11
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #377416
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4000
# * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED
#
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #209136
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4070
# * remote status changed: (?) - NEW
usertags
55 matches
Mail list logo
