Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 07:58:26 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2148
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
Log:
Tighten the build depends on gcc-4.1 to make sure TLS is available on
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 08:04:58 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2149
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/depflags.pl
Log:
keep
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.6.ds1-13
Severity: normal
Trying to install the current package libc6_2.5-4_amd64.deb
with synaptic gives a file conflict with one file from
packge gtk-qt-engine. The message (in german language,
tranlated) states that Trying to overwrite /usr/lib64,
which is also
A few updates:
I did try rerunning the gdb backtrace after installing libc6-dbg but
got the same backtrace. I had already downgraded libnss-ldap to 7.4,
but nscd still ended up eating all the CPU.
I had previously done a nscd -i hosts (and passwd and group) I
believe which didn't help.
Finally
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
A few updates:
I did try rerunning the gdb backtrace after installing libc6-dbg but
got the same backtrace. I had already downgraded libnss-ldap to 7.4,
but nscd still ended up eating all the CPU.
then it's likely that the
reassign 421581 gtk-qt-engine
severity 421581 grave
thanks
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:52:24AM +0200, Adolf Winterer wrote:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.6.ds1-13
Severity: normal
Trying to install the current package libc6_2.5-4_amd64.deb
with synaptic gives a file conflict with one file
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 421581 gtk-qt-engine
Bug#421581: libc6: File conflict with a file from gtk-qt-engine
Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `gtk-qt-engine'.
severity 421581 grave
Bug#421581: libc6: File conflict with a file from gtk-qt-engine
Severity set to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 421555 glibc
Bug#421555: coreutils: printf %-1.2500s segfaults
Bug reassigned from package `coreutils' to `glibc'.
severity 421555 critical
Bug#421555: coreutils: printf %-1.2500s segfaults
Severity set to `critical' from `important'
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.4
severity 380195 critical
Bug#380195: libc6: snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), %.20s, hello) may fail
Severity set to `critical' from `normal'
reassign 380195 glibc
Bug#380195:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.4
severity 380195 critical
Bug#380195: libc6: snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), %.20s, hello) may fail
Severity set to `critical' from `critical'
reassign 380195 glibc
Bug#380195:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: coreutils
Version: 5.97-5.3
Severity: important
$ /usr/bin/printf '%-1.2500s\n' 'Hello'
Is a quite good testcase :)
FWIW libc printf seems to work properly. Further poking shows that it
may be locale-dependant as the following
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-04-30 12:35:53 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2150
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules
Log:
use -ggdb3
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:17:57PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: coreutils
Version: 5.97-5.3
Severity: important
$ /usr/bin/printf '%-1.2500s\n' 'Hello'
Is a quite good testcase :)
FWIW libc printf seems to work properly.
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-04-30 12:46:40 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2151
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/submitted-vfprintf-stack-smashing.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
push the fix for the
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:14:29 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2152
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
Log:
* debian/control.in/main: build depends on gcc-4.1-multilib on bi-arch
architectures.
Modified:
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:22:10 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2153
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/amd64
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/i386
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:35:54PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
+ * build the glibc with -ggdb3 rather than -g so that debug symbols in
+libc6-dbg also helps in macros debugging.
Is that really a good idea? It's not _that_ useful, and I think the
-g3 output is huge, like several times
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:28:15 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2154
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc.postinst
Log:
* debhelper.in/libc.postint: remove the version check when creating
ld.so.conf. Closes:
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:30:19 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2155
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
Log:
Add a missing comma
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:31:07 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2156
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Upload to unstable
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
===
---
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 14:32:08 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2157
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
Log:
Second missing comma
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:40:15AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:35:54PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
+ * build the glibc with -ggdb3 rather than -g so that debug symbols in
+libc6-dbg also helps in macros debugging.
Is that really a good idea? It's not
Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:40:15AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:35:54PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
+ * build the glibc with -ggdb3 rather than -g so that debug symbols in
+libc6-dbg also helps in macros debugging.
Is that really
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 16:26:53 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2158
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules
Log:
Revert commit 2150 (-ggdb3)
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
This bug is caused by the use of --combine when building the mksh binary. I
suppose it's a compiler bug that identical declarations of these functions
are not seen as equivalent. I would recommend not using --combine, at least
on alpha, until this can be looked at in more detail.
Building
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-30 19:55:41 + (Mon, 30 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2159
Removed:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/submitted-vfprintf-stack-smashing.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
Remove
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
unblock 421518 by 408850
Bug#408850: conflicting stat prototypes on alpha
Bug#421518: FTBFS (alpha): conflicting types for 'stat'
Was blocked by: 408850
Blocking bugs of 421518 removed: 408850
reassign 408850 gcc
Bug#408850: conflicting stat
unblock 421518 by 408850
reassign 408850 gcc
retitle 408850 using flags -fwhole-program --combine broken
thanks
Hi all,
thanks to Steve Langasek I now know that the “conflicting prototypes” issues
for the mksh package appear due to use of the gcc flags “-fwhole-program
--combine” which,
FYI: The status of the tzdata source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2007d-1
Current version: 2007e-3
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.
--
FYI: The status of the glibc-doc-reference source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.3.6-1
Current version: 2.5-2
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more
glibc_2.5-5_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.5-5.dsc
glibc_2.5-5.diff.gz
glibc-doc_2.5-5_all.deb
locales_2.5-5_all.deb
libc6_2.5-5_amd64.deb
libc6-dev_2.5-5_amd64.deb
libc6-prof_2.5-5_amd64.deb
libc6-pic_2.5-5_amd64.deb
#
# 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 #203412
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4364
# * 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 #166403
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4342
# * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED
#
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.5-5_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-5_all.deb
glibc_2.5-5.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-5.diff.gz
glibc_2.5-5.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-5.dsc
libc6-dbg_2.5-5_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.5-5_amd64.deb
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libc6-i386_2.5-5_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says
standard.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the
Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#420835: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#166403: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#413370: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#338507: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#405738: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#420799: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#413370: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#420726: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:06 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#420755: fixed in glibc 2.5-5
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
