Your message dated Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:01:23 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#219356: libc6: i586 optimized libs
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 responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Nov 2003 22:29:10 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 05 16:29:09 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from aph-aug-104-1-4-173.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr (rafale.worldnet.fr)
[80.15.18.173]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AHW9F-0002Uy-00; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:29:09 -0600
Received: from rafale.worldnet.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by rafale.worldnet.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-4) with ESMTP id
hA5MT5RG007270;
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:29:05 +0100
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by rafale.worldnet.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-4) id hA5MT4hV007268;
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:29:04 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Emmanuel Fuste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libc6: i586 optimized libs
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.36
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:29:04 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_03
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-9
Severity: wishlist
Tags: experimental sid
Pleeeeeeaaaaassssse, include an optimized i586 lib package like for i686
in next release. My good hold dual pentium 233mmx computer will be very
very thankful to you.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux rafale 2.4.22 #1 SMP Mon Aug 25 23:20:38 CEST 2003 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages libc6 depends on:
ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-7 The Berkeley database routines [gl
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 219356-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Apr 2005 09:01:24 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 21 02:01:24 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (webmasters.gr.jp) [218.44.239.78]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DOXYq-0003hw-00; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:01:24 -0700
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmasters.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDC4DEB3D
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:01:23 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:01:23 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#219356: libc6: i586 optimized libs
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
> Ah, so the main libc6 packages already have NPTL? I don't need to
> install libc6-i686 to get NPTL? Cool (you should make that more obvious
> in the package description for libc6-i686, that you do not need it for
> NPTL).
> I think there are not much requirement for supporting i586 nowadays.
> Thinking about maintaining costs and compilation time (it's more
> precious than that you guess), at least I don't support it.
This discussion seemed being over, so I close this report. If you
have strong reason to keep opening it, please let us know and reopen
it. The current standard libc6 has already nptl support, so we don't
need libc6-i586.
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
