At Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:08:24 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> [CCing m68k, if the new results look acceptable]
>
> GOTO Masanori writes:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > At Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:52 +0100,
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Package: libc6-dev
> > > Version: 2.3.1
> > > Severity: grave
> > >
Your message dated Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:03:22 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#202969: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-2
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, 07 Aug 2003 20:03:22 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#201221: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-2
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, 07 Aug 2003 20:03:22 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#186331: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-2
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 202969 + pending
Bug#202969: libgtk2.0-0: Crash with gtk_file_selection_get_selections
Tags were: patch upstream experimental sid
Tags added: pending
> tags 201221 + pending
Bug#201221: Bug in dlopen/dlclose leads to segfaults with kdecore
There w
Your message dated Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:03:22 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#201221: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-2
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
GOTO Masanori said:
>* #181493: glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free
>* #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free
>
>I discussed with jbailey in debconf3 that these bugs should be
>downgraded. Because these bugs are difficult to fix quickly,
>and actually these
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 08:52, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Our long journey for both uploading glibc 2.3.2 to unstable and
> cvs.dpatch update to the newer one from Dec 2003 has just arrived a
> hopeful important corner. I dupload 2.3.2-2 for unstable after a bit
> hours. I believe this 2.3.2 becomes th
[CCing m68k, if the new results look acceptable]
GOTO Masanori writes:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> At Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:52 +0100,
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Package: libc6-dev
> > Version: 2.3.1
> > Severity: grave
> >
> > Attached is a diff of a binutils built in unstable with gcc-2.95 and
> > one
Hi all,
due to a pure act of laziness on my part, I "forgot" to install locales along
with libc6. Since the install in question is a busy server, I'm afraid of
installing a newer libc6 (2.2.x -> 2.3.x) or of performing a downgrade
(2.2.15-14 -> 2.2.15-11.5).
Can I force the installation of local
Hi,
I tried to install a self compiled version of libc6_2.3.1-17 on my
sid-box. Alltough compiliation was successful, the following error
occured during the installation of the deb-file:
Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.1-17 (using libc6_2.3.1-17_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
dpkg: er
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 08:52, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Our long journey for both uploading glibc 2.3.2 to unstable and
> cvs.dpatch update to the newer one from Dec 2003 has just arrived a
> hopeful important corner. I dupload 2.3.2-2 for unstable after a bit
> hours. I believe this 2.3.2 becomes th
Hi Matthias,
At Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:52 +0100,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: libc6-dev
> Version: 2.3.1
> Severity: grave
>
> Attached is a diff of a binutils built in unstable with gcc-2.95 and
> one built on yesterday's testing (still glibc-2.2.5). Although I
> cannot prove that other build
Hi all,
Our long journey for both uploading glibc 2.3.2 to unstable and
cvs.dpatch update to the newer one from Dec 2003 has just arrived a
hopeful important corner. I dupload 2.3.2-2 for unstable after a bit
hours. I believe this 2.3.2 becomes the base library for releasing
sarge.
This upload
Hi all,
Our long journey for both uploading glibc 2.3.2 to unstable and
cvs.dpatch update to the newer one from Dec 2003 has just arrived a
hopeful important corner. I dupload 2.3.2-2 for unstable after a bit
hours. I believe this 2.3.2 becomes the base library for releasing
sarge.
This upload
I just ran into this bug while testing Jeff's 2.3.2-2 packages. It does
seem rather grave, and will no doubt provoke outrage from users. Since
a patch exists, I think we should try to include it in the packages that
are uploaded to unstable.
p.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
[CCing m68k, if the new results look acceptable]
GOTO Masanori writes:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> At Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:52 +0100,
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Package: libc6-dev
> > Version: 2.3.1
> > Severity: grave
> >
> > Attached is a diff of a binutils built in unstable with gcc-2.95 and
> > one
17 matches
Mail list logo
