On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:09:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> wine-notes: relocation error: /opt/wine/lib/libntdll.so: symbol
> __libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link
> time reference
> I believe that new libc release are meant to maintin backward binary
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 165260
Bug#165260: libc6: symbol __libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not defined
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:13:13AM +0800, Anthony Fok wrote:
> So, I wonder, should libc6's postinst restart inetd or xinetd?
I'm worried that we might wind up collecting a list of packages to
restart, and taking on more burden that we should.
Perhaps a medium priority debconf warning that notes
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
Tags: sid upstream
Running a (admittedly non Debian built) version of wine gives the
following error:
wine-notes: relocation error: /opt/wine/lib/libntdll.so: symbol
__libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not de
Right after my upgrade to glibc-2.3.1, fetchmail/exim stopped working:
fetchmail: SMTP connect to localhost failed
telnetting to SMTP didn't quite work either:
$ telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
The call to dpkg --compare-versions in libc's postinst should compare
against a higher version than 2.1.95-1; after upgrading to 2.3.1-1, I
found that a lot of services (including in particular inetd and kdm)
didn't work right until I r
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:09:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> wine-notes: relocation error: /opt/wine/lib/libntdll.so: symbol
> __libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link
> time reference
> I believe that new libc release are meant to maintin backward binary
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 165260
Bug#165260: libc6: symbol __libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not defined
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
> >Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
> > for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
>
> we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
> propose a transition plan for a _coordinat
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
Tags: sid upstream
Running a (admittedly non Debian built) version of wine gives the
following error:
wine-notes: relocation error: /opt/wine/lib/libntdll.so: symbol
__libc_fork, version GLIBC_2.1.2 not de
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
The call to dpkg --compare-versions in libc's postinst should compare
against a higher version than 2.1.95-1; after upgrading to 2.3.1-1, I
found that a lot of services (including in particular inetd and kdm)
didn't work right until I r
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:13:13AM +0800, Anthony Fok wrote:
> So, I wonder, should libc6's postinst restart inetd or xinetd?
I'm worried that we might wind up collecting a list of packages to
restart, and taking on more burden that we should.
Perhaps a medium priority debconf warning that notes
Right after my upgrade to glibc-2.3.1, fetchmail/exim stopped working:
fetchmail: SMTP connect to localhost failed
telnetting to SMTP didn't quite work either:
$ telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
> >Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
> > for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
>
> we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
> propose a transition plan for a _coordinat
Updated -udeb patch: http://raw.no/d-i/patches/glibc-2.3.1-udeb.patch
Please, please apply this for the next upload, it is absolutely needed
for debian-installer. The patch is tested and builds cleanly on
i386/unstable.
diff -Nru glibc-2.3.1/debian/changelog glibc-2.3.1.udeb.working/debian/chan
$B!!(B<$BAw?. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<%i%$%U!!:45W4V(B
$B!!G[?.Dd;_!'([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
$B!!FMA3$N%a!<%k$NG[?.?<$/$*OM$S?=$7>e$2$^$9!#(B
$B!!$3$l$O(BWEB$B>e$K%"%I%l%9$r8x3+$5$l$F$$$kJ}$rBP>]$KG[?.$7$F$$$k9-9p(B
$B!!%a!<%k$G$9!#:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<%kG[?.ITMW$NJ}$O$3$N%a!<%k$r$=$N$^$^(B
$
Updated -udeb patch: http://raw.no/d-i/patches/glibc-2.3.1-udeb.patch
Please, please apply this for the next upload, it is absolutely needed
for debian-installer. The patch is tested and builds cleanly on
i386/unstable.
diff -Nru glibc-2.3.1/debian/changelog glibc-2.3.1.udeb.working/debian/chan
Jack Howarth writes:
>Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
> for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
propose a transition plan for a _coordinated_ transition of glibc and
gcc. It seems a bit late for that :-(
> I am as
$B!!(B<$BAw?. $B%o%s%@!<%i%$%U!!:45W4V(B
$B!!G[?.Dd;_!'([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
$B!!FMA3$N%a!<%k$NG[?.?<$/$*OM$S?=$7>e$2$^$9!#(B
$B!!$3$l$O(BWEB$B>e$K%"%I%l%9$r8x3+$5$l$F$$$kJ}$rBP>]$KG[?.$7$F$$$k9-9p(B
$B!!%a!<%k$G$9!#:#8e0l@Z$N%a!<%kG[?.ITMW$NJ}$O$3$N%a!<%k$r$=$N$^$^(B
$B!!$4JV?.$/$
Jack Howarth writes:
>Now that glibc 2.3.1 is in sid, what are the plans
> for the transition to gcc 3.2.1?
we are waiting for an transition plan. My assumption was Jeff would
propose a transition plan for a _coordinated_ transition of glibc and
gcc. It seems a bit late for that :-(
> I am as
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:02:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Note for the mips folks: I applied the patch so you can compile, not
> the patches for the testsuite. I'll catch those next round, hopefully
> with a CVS update so we get all the regex fixes too.
let me point out that without[
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> >No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
> >to
> >it.
>
> If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc return
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155606: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the relevan
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:02:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Note for the mips folks: I applied the patch so you can compile, not
> the patches for the testsuite. I'll catch those next round, hopefully
> with a CVS update so we get all the regex fixes too.
let me point out that without[
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#156821: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#160846: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#159417: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#157374: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155606: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> ^^^
> > > Ben Collins writes:
> > > > And as I've said in the past numerous ti
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.3.1-1_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.1-1_all.deb
glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dev_2.
glibc_2.3.1-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dev_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
nscd_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
loca
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#160846: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> >No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
> >to
> >it.
>
> If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc return
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the rel
Since I now have a glibc that compiles with no errors in the
testsuite, and has been tested with : X, gnome2, ssh, apache/php4 and
galeon I have uploaded it. Let the adventures begin. =)
Note for the mips folks: I applied the patch so you can compile, not
the patches for the testsuite. I'll catc
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> ^^^
> > > Ben Collins writes:
> > > > And as I've said in the past numerous ti
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
The i586 library works fine so I've reassigned this to glibc.
Looks like any process which doesn't have cmov must report itself as i586.
Scott
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.3.1-1_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.1-1_all.deb
glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dev_2.
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#156821: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#159417: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#157374: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:32:42 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#155904: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
glibc_2.3.1-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.3.1-1.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-1.tar.gz
libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dev_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
nscd_2.3.1-1_i386.deb
loca
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/0li
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/0list: Upda
Since I now have a glibc that compiles with no errors in the
testsuite, and has been tested with : X, gnome2, ssh, apache/php4 and
galeon I have uploaded it. Let the adventures begin. =)
Note for the mips folks: I applied the patch so you can compile, not
the patches for the testsuite. I'll catc
The i586 library works fine so I've reassigned this to glibc.
Looks like any process which doesn't have cmov must report itself as i586.
Scott
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/0list: Upda
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Thu Oct 17 06:43:42 MDT 2002
Log Message:
From changelog:
- debian/control.in/main: Require binutils 2.13.90.0.10-1 for ppc
- debian/patches/elf-machine-rela-mips.dpatch: New file
- debian/patches/0li
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
> > Ben Collins writes:
> > > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > > IPv6 using program (including apache
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
> > Ben Collins writes:
> > > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > > IPv6 using program (including apache
66 matches
Mail list logo
