At Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:35:45 -0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > There are still many critical, grave and serious bugs listed in BTS > against glibc. Should we try to fix some of them? :-)
Thanks for your clarification. > Critical: > * #162551: libc6-sparc64 conflicts with fakeroot > Package: libc6-sparc64; Severity: critical; Reported by: Julian Stoev ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 64 days old. > > This is a woody bug. BenC's proposed fix is: > ] The fix will be to make libc6-sparc64 conflict with gcc-3.0, > ] gcc-3.0-sparc64 and older fakeroot. > > This also requires that a new version of fakeroot be uploaded for > woody-proposed-updates Under my test, dpkg/apt does not complain. Does this still need to work? Or should we need something to work with this proposal? > * #165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?) > Package: libc6; Severity: critical; Reported by: Rene Engelhard ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 43 days old. > > This one is about whether to provide things like __libc_waitpid and > __libc_fork temporarily for transition purposes. We should decide one > way or another and either add the aliases or close the bug :-) Yes. I would like to add __libc_waitpid/__libc_fork... However, I agree it should be downgrade or change the sevelity as you say :) > * #165374: =?iso-8859-15?q?Breaks_when_upgrading_to_2=2E3=2E1?= > Package: libc6-dbg; Severity: critical; Reported by: >=?iso-8859-15?q?Per_Lundberg?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 43 days old. > > If /usr/lib/debug is in your /etc/ld.so.conf, then installing the new > glibc fails. mdz writes: > ] I would be quite surprised if this were the only thing to break in this > ] situation [...] > ] This bug does not, in my opinion, warrant Severity: critical, if it is a > ] bug at all. > > I'd tend to agree -- this is not a "typical" setup. Hmm. Downgrading to important is more appropriate for me... > * #166967: libc6: upgrade of libc6 may have broken jabber 1.4.2 server > Package: libc6; Severity: critical; Reported by: John M Flinchbaugh ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: sid; 31 days old. > > Someone else had followed up to say that the problem is no longer seen > with a newer jabber; suggest we close this. Seconded. I wait some period to listen to complain. > * #167794: Wrong Pre-Depends > Package: libc6; Severity: critical; Reported by: Martin Schulze ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 25 days old. > > Looks like this might be a problem in the buildd setup? There's not > enough information in the bug to say, and I'm not sure why this is > assigned to glibc. I've closed this bug. > * #169790: libc6: installation failure on dist-upgrade > Package: libc6; Severity: critical; Reported by: Forrest Cahoon ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 10 days old. > > postinst fails when some of the packages being checked are not installed > (I think). This was reported against 2.3.1-4. Has this been fixed? It should be. > * #170635: libc6 2.3.1-3 to 2.3.1-5 upgrade breaks > Package: libc6; Severity: critical; Reported by: Magnus Danielson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > Appears to be unreproducible; more info needed. Also appears to be > isolated, maybe we should downgrade this. This problem is apparently non glibc issue. I've closed this bug. > Grave functionality bugs - outstanding > (A list of all such bugs used to be available). > > * #165699: php4: apache segfault w/ php4 and mysql,imap loaded together related >to #165563 > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: David Raufeisen ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: sid; merged with #165718, #165719; 40 days old. > * #165718: php4-imap: apache segmentation fault when starting php4-imap module > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Debian User ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: sid; merged with #165699, #165719; 40 days old. > * #165719: php4 possibly causes apache to stop functioning > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Michel Lobert ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: sid; merged with #165699, #165718; 40 days old. > * #166414: apache: Apache non-functional after upgrade > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Tony Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >Tags: sid; 35 days old. > > All these appear to be somehow related. Not sure what's the deal here > yet. ...And still I don't understand what is the problem... Are these bugs alive? > * #169789: libc6: postinst broken: uninstallable if you upgrade from a version >older than 2.2.94-1 > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Marco Nenciarini ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch, sid; 10 days old. > > This one has been fixed. I'm going to close this bug. Thanks. > * #169818: libc6: runlevel can return =?iso-8859-1?q?=ABunknown=BB?=, which >breaks restarts > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >10 days old. > > Has this one been fixed yet? Seems like a trivial fix. Yup. > * #170385: libc6 should conflict with wine (<< 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other >packages > Package: libc6; Severity: grave; Reported by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 7 days >old. > > This is related to __libc_fork(). The submitter wants glibc to conflict > with older wine. Do we ever do package-specific conflicts for libc? > Seems like that would be difficult to maintain. Seems like this really > is a wine issue; can we close/reassign this? IMO, introducing __libc_fork patch resolve all these issue. In addition, I strongly object to use such a package-specific conflict. From this bug, introducing __libc_fork patch takes us two benefit: (1) we can safely upgrade from woody to sarge (2) we don't need to care such conflict. If there is no objection, I commit the patch. > Serious policy violations - outstanding > (A list of all such bugs used to be available). > > * #167909: Patch for s390 build problems > Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Gerhard Tonn ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 24 days old. > * #169919: FTBFS on s390 > Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Gerhard Tonn ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 9 days old. > > Looks like these ones are already in cvs. I'll mark them 'pending'. Thanks. In -6, we will get fixed glibc package for s390 :) > * #170507: glibc: header goofup on hppa breaks XFree86 compilation > Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Branden Robinson ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: help. > > Carlos is looking at this one I think. Carlos? -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
