So, can someone please tell me what's wrong with
this unblock request?
I can try to fix built-using generation adding gcc
to the mix but I'm afraid to do that this late in
the release cycle, especially after it required so
many iterations to get the most important in this
context part of
Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru (2014-12-01):
So, can someone please tell me what's wrong with this unblock request?
I did write in my first reply:
“At this stage, I'd rather see the security fix only.”
I can try to fix built-using generation adding gcc to the mix but I'm
afraid to do that
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
(The Built-Using field generation is a bit fun here: I asked on IRC
how people identify which libc is in use, and got various somewhat-
incpmplete replies (the prob is that on different arches, libc package
is named differently). So I invented my
28.11.2014 15:11, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
(The Built-Using field generation is a bit fun here: I asked on IRC
how people identify which libc is in use, and got various somewhat-
incpmplete replies (the prob is that on different arches, libc package
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
‣ intimate knowledge of the build system required, so you know
what precidely is pulled in (reading shlibs:Depends from the
build of the shared version is almost certainly wrong)
Why it is wrong? To be this looks like the most accurate
28.11.2014 18:06, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
‣ intimate knowledge of the build system required, so you know
what precidely is pulled in (reading shlibs:Depends from the
build of the shared version is almost certainly wrong)
Why it is wrong? To
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Um. Maybe we should assume exact versions of software running in
buildds too?
No, only things that end up in the binaries.
BTW, how about somethig like gcc -v (I'm not sure it is the right
option actually) which shows all libs it actually used
7 matches
Mail list logo
