r6846 - glibc-package/branches/glibc-branch-jessie/debian
Author: aurel32 Date: 2015-12-28 22:55:05 + (Mon, 28 Dec 2015) New Revision: 6846 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-branch-jessie/debian/changelog Log: Upload to jessie Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-branch-jessie/debian/changelog === --- glibc-package/branches/glibc-branch-jessie/debian/changelog 2015-12-25 02:51:16 UTC (rev 6845) +++ glibc-package/branches/glibc-branch-jessie/debian/changelog 2015-12-28 22:55:05 UTC (rev 6846) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -glibc (2.19-18+deb8u2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium +glibc (2.19-18+deb8u2) stable; urgency=medium [ Aurelien Jarno ] * Update from upstream stable branch: @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ local-blacklist-for-Intel-TSX.diff also blacklisting some Broadwell models. Closes: #800574. - -- Aurelien Jarno Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:19:53 +0200 + -- Aurelien Jarno Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:39:40 +0100 glibc (2.19-18+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium
Bug#808721: libc: avoid negative questions in restart-without-asking debconf knob
Aurelien Jarno wrote on Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 23:29:42 +0100: > control: reassign -1 libc6,pam,openssl > control: retitle -1 libc6,pam,openssl: avoid negative questions in > restart-without-asking debconf knob > > On 2015-12-22 07:43, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Package: libc6 > > Version: 2.21-4 > > Severity: minor > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > The restart-without-asking debconf knob is formulated as a negative > > question: > > > > Template: libraries/restart-without-asking > > Type: boolean > > Default: false > > _Description: Restart services during package upgrades without asking? > > > > This can be confusing: in my case, I initially thought I should pick "yes" > > since I read the question is "would you like to be prompted before > > restarting > > services". > > I am not a native speaker, but I don't see this as problematic. The > default is actually "no", so this mean you are supposed to actually read > the question before changing the default. I did read the question, but I misunderstood it: my "should I change the default?" subroutine had a false positive. I believe changing the template from a negative question to a positive question would make it less likely to be misunderstood in the future. > > I assume this could be done backwards-compatibly by defining a new knob > > (restart-without-asking2) and looking for the current knob name if the new > > knob > > isn't set. > > If we really want to change this, this is not that easy. The template is > shared with pam and openssl, so this need everybody to agree and some > coordination. I am therefore reassigning the bug to this three packages. Oh. I didn't realize the template is shared. I'm not sure this issue is important enough to justify a cross-package coordination effort; perhaps it should be closed as WONTFIX / ETOOMUCHEFFORT... > > I suggest to change the description to: > > .. > > _Description: Ask permission to restart services during package > > upgrades? > > .. > > and accordingly change the default answer to "Yes" (which would not be > > a semantic change). > > I have to say "Ask permission" sounds even more confusing to me, it's > not really clear how is it going to be asked. "would you like to be > prompted" sounds more clear to me. > Agreed about your suggested phrasing. Thanks for the detailed reply! Cheers, Daniel
Bug#746516: glibc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches.
retitle 746516 glibc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches. thanks > It seems that not all arches have -fasynchronous-unwind-tables > enabled. I see it enabled on amd64, i386, s390x, but disabled > on armel/armhf, powerpc. > > Could this enable this on more architectures? > > I'm currently seeing elfutils test failures on powerpc because > the unwind information is not available. I'll probably also get > this problem on arm64 if it's not enabled there. Elfutils is still broken because of this, on everything but a few architectures. Can you please enable it? As far as I can see, only init/fini should not be build using it and as far as I can see most arches should already support this. Kurt
Processed: Re: glibc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 746516 glibc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches. Bug #746516 [src:glibc] gcc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches. Changed Bug title to 'glibc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches.' from 'gcc: Enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on more arches.' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 746516: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746516 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
