Re: Issue with upgrading libc6-dev-amd64:i386 to 2.16
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:06:42AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: Hi, I just noticed that you merged my x32 changes into the SVN eglibc-2.16 branch - thanks. I just thought I'd give you a heads-up on an issue I saw while doing these changes: if I upgrade libc6-dev-amd64 in an i386 chroot from 2.13-35 to 2.16-0experimental0, several header files under /usr/include/bits get lost. This is fixed now in -0experimental1, just uploaded. Thanks for this message, it served as a subtle reminder to dig deeper into the issue. ... 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/20121126094744.gi29...@0c3.net
Issue with upgrading libc6-dev-amd64:i386 to 2.16
Hi, I just noticed that you merged my x32 changes into the SVN eglibc-2.16 branch - thanks. I just thought I'd give you a heads-up on an issue I saw while doing these changes: if I upgrade libc6-dev-amd64 in an i386 chroot from 2.13-35 to 2.16-0experimental0, several header files under /usr/include/bits get lost. I would guess it's because of the reorganization changing copies of amd64 headers into symlinks on that arch. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the intricacies of dpkg maintainer scripts to formulate a proper fix myself, though. So for now, I'm just working around it by installing the newer libc6-dev-amd64 package twice. -- Daniel Schepler -- 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/CADf0C47hH_-f5hoJB1qv1NB=K7mXo5vYGBQZ5Pso-=0unow...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Issue with upgrading libc6-dev-amd64:i386 to 2.16
I also just noticed that you merged in my changes to debian/rules.d/tarball.mk setting an explicit checkout revision for making the orig.tar.xz. That was meant to be a purely local change, to get me something comparable to what debian/patches was originally applying against, but I guess it must have leaked into the patch I posted previously. You can feel free to revert that part of the changes if you want. But while I'm thinking about it -- do we actually need linuxthreads for anything anymore? It's no longer distributed at all by glibc upstream (there isn't even a glibc-linuxthreads.git to parallel glibc.git and glibc-ports.git). -- Daniel Schepler -- 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/cadf0c47qjy-znr-4le6c5vhnxqj6unsizu6x1ckzrevg6yn...@mail.gmail.com
