At Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:12:30 -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:17:43PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > I concern ISO-4217.def. ISO-4217.def should be fixed in upstream > > level... I don't know it's ok or not. Many currency are removed from > > the list, but the stance of glibc is "if the user exists, and > > technically right, then put in", IMHO. If this removal stands on > > "spec does not say about it", then this patch should not apply. > > The LSB runtime certification FAQ has the "explanation", it's at: > http://www.linuxbase.org/test/lsb-runtime-test-faq.html > > Andrew Josey's chair of the Austin group so presumably he knows what > he's talking about when he says it's a "misinterpretation". (I'm not > sure if glibc agrees, or if I do, but it's what the LSB testsuite needs > and having them seems less likely to beak anything than not having them) > > I haven't passed any of these on to upstream, but Thorsten Kukuk > probably has.
I recheck the latest glibc (2.2.9x, not 2.2.5), and the things are all reflected. ISO-4217.def and io/ftw.c are also. Now we have glibc-2.2.93, and plan to transition into 2.2.9x, so I think glibc-2.2.93-1.deb can be fixed this bug, well we re-recheck the patch which Anthony sent when we release the 2.2.9x. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
