On 6 November 2010 at 14:14, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 09:01 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On 4 November 2010 at 17:56, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | > | It looks like the current Debian package doesn't set LD_LIBRARY_PATH at | > | all in the slurm-llnl-slurmdbd init script. Was the addition of that to | > | the init script in the updated package intentional? (Upstream's init | > | script does set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, so it makes sense there). | > | > So I am totally confused. Does that mean there is no bug? | | Gennaro's proposed fix modifies two init scripts, only one of which | previously set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. The fix for that one script is fine, | the question was whether the change to the second script was intentional | and appropriate (as it will lead to an extra directory being added to | LD_LIBRARY_PATH which was not previously included).
Thank you -- that's how I was reading the discussion to. But now I need a consensus recommendation as to what I should upload. As the package was prepared by Gennaro, or with another alteration? | > Also, the consensus was that for testing I need to upload to testing rather | > than testing-security? | | Yes. Cool. I have to dash out to take daughter nb two to a soccer game but I can deal with this later in the day. Given clear instructions (pretty please) we should be able to get this off our plates in one iteration. Thanks a bunch, Dirk | Regards, | | Adam | -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
