On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:37:22PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> I agree that this information (and a quote of the actual build failure)
> was missing from the initial bug report, so here goes:
Now I've got context :)
Really I think PATH_MAX should be defined, but I prefer the way things
are in yo
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 06:51:55PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:49AM +0530, Madhusudan.C.S wrote:
> > Fixes the PATH_MAX problems in proc/readproc.c file
> > and pwdx.c file. This patch builds procps on Hurd. And
> > the tools pgrep, pkill, kill, top, watch, tload
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:49AM +0530, Madhusudan.C.S wrote:
> Fixes the PATH_MAX problems in proc/readproc.c file
> and pwdx.c file. This patch builds procps on Hurd. And
> the tools pgrep, pkill, kill, top, watch, tload also
> work.
This bug report does not explain anything, specifically:
*
severity 496274 important
thanks
Hi,
this is a FTBFS bug, which are serious for regressions on released
architectures, and important for everything else. Why did you downgrade
it to normal? Should we retitle the bug to have FTBFS in the title?
thanks,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Package: procps
Version: 3.2.7
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Fixes the PATH_MAX problems in proc/readproc.c file
and pwdx.c file. This patch builds procps on Hurd. And
the tools pgrep, pkill, kill, top, watch, tload also
work.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unsta
5 matches
Mail list logo
