On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:56:56AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
Package: xfsprogs
Version: 2.7.14-1
Severity: important
The ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage (333536) which persists
on m68k in gcc-4.0 is fixed in gcc-4.1.
This looks like a clear gcc bug - why is it assigned to
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:18:49PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:23:29AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
...
I'd simply compile the package with gcc-4.1. If you're not planning a
sourceful upload any time soon, this would get the package up-to-date
and I'd have one
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
xfs_fsr leaks memory. We talked about this on the XFS list,and you provided a
patch which worked OK.
I just wanted to file this report as a reminder...
Hi Ralf,
No need for a reminder :) -- I'm just waiting on an xfsdump fix
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:20:22PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
uclibc is a lightweight alternative to glibc. I am in the process of
building a fair amount
of Debian packages with it, for e.g. i386-uclibc architecture.
Now, both uclibc-dev and libc6-dev provide libc-dev, so attr-like
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:28:37AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:20:22PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
uclibc is a lightweight alternative to glibc. I am in the process of
building a fair amount
of Debian packages with it, for e.g. i386-uclibc architecture.
Now
Hi Pjotr,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
...
This bug report could use a bit more text explaining what uclibc
is all about, for those of us who don't really know. I also have
several packages, but patches for only 2, and I'm now wondering if
I need these
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
xfsdump doesn't build on alpha and ia64:
Ah, this is a build dependency issue - a newer version of the
xfslibs-dev package needs to be used - I'll get that fixed up.
BTW, is there a reason to build with -O1 instead of -O2 as policy
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
tags 299095 +patch
thanks
Hi,
attached is a patch which fixes the compilation of the ioctl syscalls on
hurd-i386 by essentially exempting that file.
OOC, what was the compiler error?
A more elegant fix would be to check
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:31:54AM +, Malcolm Scott wrote:
Version: 2.2.27-1
This was fixed in 2.2.30 (already in the archive). And in 2.2.32
(not yet uploaded), this script will be replaced entirely by the
xfs_quota(8) command from recent versions of xfsprogs.
cheers.
--
Nathan
--
To
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:26:31PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Package: xfsprogs
Version: 2.6.36-1
Severity: normal
Hello Nathan,
using the frag command in xfs_db gives a segmentation fault here:
Hi Martin,
I fixed this a little while ago in XFS CVS, but I've not yet
uploaded a new
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:39:34PM -0400, Christopher Martin wrote:
I was contemplating creating an XFS partition, and in the process of
verifying that XFS works with SELinux, came across this thread:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-selinux-list/2004-October/msg00023.html
It
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 09:46:49AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
However, we recently extended XFS to use a different algorithm for
managing the literal area of the inode (after the stat stat, where
stat data, even. :)
cheers.
--
Nathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 10:30:47PM +0200, Sylvain Archenault wrote:
Please find attached the french debconf templates update, proofread by the
debian-l10n-french mailing list contributors.
This file should be put as debian/po/fr.po in your package build tree.
Thank you, I've done that - I'll
Hi there,
Revisiting this one, again. Firstly, since we've had no other
people reporting having hit this issue, I plan to downgrade this
from a critical bug... I assume if it was happening to everyone
the arm port would be unusable, certainly that would be critical;
and we'd probably have made a
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
...
Recompiling libacl1 (itself an awkward task since the package itself
segfaults in the middle when it is doing something to the postinst script)
and installing the recompiled version fixes the problem.
Given this
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:30:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:29:54PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
...
Recompiling libacl1 (itself an awkward task since the package itself
segfaults in the middle when it is doing something to the postinst script
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 05:26:09PM -0400, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
A bug was also filed with the xfs developers and should be fixed in cvs
promptly. This bug causes xfs_repair to fail on certain configurations.
I'll update the package once the fix is committed to CVS, thanks.
--
Nathan
--
To
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:42:34PM +0200, Kim Hansen wrote:
It looks like xfsrq is written to another version of setquota. I changed
Thanks, I'll get these merged upstream and a new upload a new
version of xfsdump soon.
--
Nathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Hi there,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:39:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
I've just upgraded my system from woody to sarge. Among other upgrade
problems I noticed that programmes like cp, mv and install were
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:56:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:58:02AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
Anything specific you're looking for there Steve?
+ arm: upgrade doesn't work with 2.2, but can work with 2.4.24 or above.
(perhaps also with older versions
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:37:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
reassign 305055 dmapi,xfslibs-dev
tags 305055 sid
thanks
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:24:37PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
Package: dmapi
Version: 2.2.0-1
Severity: serious
building the package dmapi in a clean sid build
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:32:49AM +0200, Xavier Hienne wrote:
Nathan Scott a écrit :
Let's reassign this bug to glibc, and ask those folks to take
a look at the problem.
Maybe should this bug be untagged upstream then ?
Since its working on other versions of glibc (ie SLES9), odds
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Xavier Hienne wrote:
Hi,
I too am encountering the very same bug on a 1900+ entry /home
directory. The bug is easily reproducible :
Yep, just tried it and it is indeed easy to hit with that test
case, thanks. I've also tried this on a SLES9 machine
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:12:51AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:17:35AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
OK, this should fix that (on top of the earlier patch). Any
further failures?
From a quick review of the other sources, looks like dquot.c may
also
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:41:56AM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-24 12:13, Nathan Scott wrote:
Could you try a gcc-4 compile with this patch please Andreas?
I applied the patch, but compilation with gcc-4.0 still leads to the
following error:
In file included from agi.c:34
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:17:35AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
OK, this should fix that (on top of the earlier patch). Any
further failures?
From a quick review of the other sources, looks like dquot.c may
also cause you trouble - if so, let me know - I guess this patch
will resolve
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:07:33PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
Package: xfsprogs
Version: 2.6.26-1
Severity: grave
This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
executable stack, while a unstable
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:25:07AM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-23 15:20, Nathan Scott wrote:
thank you for your fast reply to my bug report.
No problem.
This issue has been discussed on the gcc list. The new error message
'array type has incomplete element type' was introduced
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:50:59PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
I attached the wrong patch to my bug report, sorry.
The correct patch is the following one.
Could you try a gcc-4 compile with this patch please Andreas?
thanks.
--
Nathan
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:50:59PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
I attached the wrong patch to my bug report, sorry.
The correct patch is the following one.
...
-struct field;
-
-extern const struct fieldagf_flds[];
-extern const struct fieldagf_hfld[];
...
Andreas, this really
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:00:47AM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-08 14:09, Nathan Scott wrote:
-Build-Depends: uuid-dev, autoconf, debhelper, gettext, libtool,
libreadline4-dev
+Build-Depends: uuid-dev, autoconf, debhelper, gettext, libtool,
libreadline5-dev
This part
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:10:25PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
-static char *progname;
+char *progname;
Thanks. This is some silly namespace pollution, but simplest
to just fix this way -- I've used a similar fix in xfsprogs,
rather than the global replace you used there. I'll upload
fixed
/control 2005-03-03 11:23:47.0 +0100
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Section: admin
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Nathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Build-Depends: uuid-dev, autoconf, debhelper, gettext, libtool,
libreadline4-dev
+Build-Depends: uuid-dev, autoconf, debhelper, gettext, libtool
The manual should probably read:
Any output from xfs_check that was not due to the VERBOSE flag means
that the filesystem has an inconsistency.
Thanks, I'll fix this up in the next version of xfsprogs.
cheers.
--
Nathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:45:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Please consider either changing to a really native package (without
debian-version in the version number)
I guess I would consider a patch to do this if I was sent one, but
as I said I've never found a need to do this, and have not
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:50:01AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
xfs_check is in /usr, which means that /usr needs to be mounted to
execute xfs_check, which means that /usr cannot be xfschecked at all
if it is an xfs itselt.
You can run xfs_repair -n in this situation. xfs_check is really
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:48:55AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
When I run shutdown -F, I expect my file systems to be checked on
bootup, regardless whether the file system is journaling or not. I
I really wouldn't expect that, myself.
might have enountered strange fs behavior and would like to
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:10:09PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I have a filesystem that stores (a backup) of my maildir with about 900k
files. This filesystem somehow (bad disk most likely) got corrupted a
bit so I tried to xfs_repair it.
Hi Peter,
Can you tell me how many inodes in this
201 - 238 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
