Bug#1071321: tagging 1071321

2024-06-02 Thread Florian Ernst
Following up on this: On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:42:56AM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 10:54:21AM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > Étienne Mollier wrote... > > > If that helps, the symbols strlcat and strlcpy have been added > > > to the glibc 2.38, so I believe it should

Bug#1071321: tagging 1071321

2024-05-26 Thread Florian Ernst
Hello everyone, On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 10:54:21AM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Étienne Mollier wrote... > > If that helps, the symbols strlcat and strlcpy have been added > > to the glibc 2.38, so I believe it should be safe to remove the > > following symbols without soname bump: > > Just

Bug#1071321: tagging 1071321

2024-05-26 Thread Christoph Biedl
Christoph Biedl wrote... > (and why does the BTS¹ not show Étienne's > message?). Never mind, just a race condition. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#1071321: tagging 1071321

2024-05-26 Thread Christoph Biedl
Étienne Mollier wrote... > If that helps, the symbols strlcat and strlcpy have been added > to the glibc 2.38, so I believe it should be safe to remove the > following symbols without soname bump: Just came here to say the same (and why does the BTS¹ not show Étienne's message?). There might be

Bug#1071321: tagging 1071321

2024-05-26 Thread Étienne Mollier
Hi Florian, Florian Ernst, on 2024-05-18: > # yeah, confirmed via sbuild, and I will further investigate the next chance > I get If that helps, the symbols strlcat and strlcpy have been added to the glibc 2.38, so I believe it should be safe to remove the following symbols without soname bump: