Processed: Re: Bug#639658: kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64: calling waitpid from a thread raises 'no child processes'
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 639658 important Bug #639658 [kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64] kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64: calling waitpid from a thread raises 'no child processes' Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' retitle 639658 [kfreebsd] waitpid from a thread does not work for child processes created by other threads Bug #639658 [kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64] kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64: calling waitpid from a thread raises 'no child processes' Changed Bug title to '[kfreebsd] waitpid from a thread does not work for child processes created by other threads' from 'kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64: calling waitpid from a thread raises 'no child processes'' reassign 639658 kfreebsd-8, kfreebsd-9, eglibc Bug #639658 [kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64] [kfreebsd] waitpid from a thread does not work for child processes created by other threads Bug reassigned from package 'kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-amd64' to 'kfreebsd-8,kfreebsd-9,eglibc'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8. -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 639658: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639658 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.131460437410732.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processing of tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes
/tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes is already present on target host: tzdata_2011h.orig.tar.gz Either you already uploaded it, or someone else came first. Job tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes removed. Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qxxr0-0007wp...@franck.debian.org
Processing of tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes
tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.dsc tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.diff.gz tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qy0in-0004rv...@franck.debian.org
tzdata override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb: package says section is java, override says libs. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qy0qh-0006bm...@franck.debian.org
tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into oldstable-proposed-updates
Notes: Mapping oldstable to oldstable-proposed-updates. Accepted: tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb to main/t/tzdata/tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.diff.gz to main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.diff.gz tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.dsc to main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.dsc tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb to main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb Override entries for your package: tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb - optional libs tzdata_2011h-0lenny1.dsc - source libs tzdata_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb - required libs Announcing to debian-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qy2jl-0001t9...@franck.debian.org
tzdata override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): tzdata-java_2011h-0lenny1_all.deb: package says section is java, override says libs. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qy2jl-0001th...@franck.debian.org
Bug#639697: libc6-dev: missing file lowlevellock.h
Package: libc6-dev Version: 2.11.2-10 Severity: important The file /usr/include/bits/stdio-lock.h has on line 24 #include lowlevellock.h but this file is not provided by any Debian package. TIA, Colin S. Miller -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.2 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on: ii libc-dev-bin 2.11.2-10 Embedded GNU C Library: Developmen ii libc6 2.11.2-10 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib ii linux-libc-dev2.6.32-35 Linux support headers for userspac Versions of packages libc6-dev recommends: ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.4.5-1 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-29 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.4 [c-compiler] 4.4.5-8The GNU C compiler Versions of packages libc6-dev suggests: pn glibc-doc none (no description available) ii manpages-dev 3.27-1 Manual pages about using GNU/Linux -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110829141609.5489.2666.report...@finn.csmiller.demon.co.uk
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] Thanks. From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes applied to p-u. Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version available for testing. We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling fail). Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to be blocked currently. Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue, or to persist for some time? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1314631842.3574.23.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:30:41PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] Thanks. From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes applied to p-u. Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version available for testing. We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling fail). Does it mean we should consider it for the 6.0.4 cycle instead? Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to be blocked currently. Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue, or to persist for some time? Given I haven't got any answer to the mails I sent to the call for testing thread, I don't expect this issue will be fixed soon. Regards, Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110829213058.gk11...@hall.aurel32.net
