Author: gotom
Date: 2005-08-19 05:45:23 + (Fri, 19 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 1006
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/ppc64
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/s390x
reassign 323798 openmotif
thanks
* GOTO Masanori ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050819 02:37]:
At Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:56:19 +0200,
Andreas Barth wrote:
during building openmotif on sparc, this error happened:
gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-unused -Wno-comment -o .libs/periodic periodic.o
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 323798 openmotif
Bug#323798: [sparc] corrupted double-linked list
Bug reassigned from package `glibc' to `openmotif'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
ALERT: Third and FINAL Notification:
Although you were not accepted initially, we are now happy to present you with
three deals from two different brokers.
Remember, there is absolutely No commitment required on your part and past
credit is a non-issue.
Please validate your information with
Hi.
I'm writing an article (in french) about libdl.so and faced a behavior I
wasn't expected while trying to chain functions w/ same name in
different libraries using dlsym/RTLD_NEXT :
Here is a compile time link of the chain components :
for i in 1 2 3 4
do
cat lib$i.c EOF
#include stdio.h
Author: gotom
Date: 2005-08-19 09:39:48 + (Fri, 19 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 1007
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/glibc235-dl-execstack.dpatch
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/00list
Log:
*
Author: gotom
Date: 2005-08-19 09:42:56 + (Fri, 19 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 1008
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc.postinst
Log:
- debian/debhelper.in/libc.postinst: Fix to invoke NSS check again.
Modified:
At Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:36:53 -0400 (EDT),
David S. Miller wrote:
Yes, because the optimized memcpy/memset in the sparcv9 package
is severely suboptimal for UltraSPARC-III and later chips, which
is what the sparcv9b package is needed for.
...
Right, it will be necessary. To be honest, pure
Your message dated Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323560: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323560: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323560: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323409: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322768: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322768: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321796: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321796: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321796: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321796: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321718: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321718: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321717: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321712: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321712: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321561: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321561: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321561: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323560: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323560: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323552: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323487: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323409: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321561: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321561: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322768: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322768: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322768: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321712: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321712: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321717: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#322506: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321796: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321717: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321740: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321719: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:17:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#321718: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-4
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
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki schrieb:
Do you happen to know if a backport for sarge of the fixed nptl is
available? If not, what would it take to get one to backports.org?
libc6 is not dependend on other packages. The most recent version
therefore might be usable with Sarge without modification.
**
Build finished at 20050819-1021
FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]
FATAL: kernel too old is barfed by ld.so. It refuses to execute on
old kernel 2.4. I guess the s390 buildd debian01 uses 2.4 kernel.
ld.so built with NPTL requires 2.6 kernel, because
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:06:12 +0200,
Zoran Dzelajlija wrote:
Well, for one thing, upgrading libc6 triggers the breakage on
unrelated, already installed packages - and there's a lot of those
linked to eg. libssl-0.9.7.so. BTW. looks like there are some patches
which mitigate this issue, see eg.
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.5-4
Severity: normal
The following program shows that putwchar() can return WEOF with
errno = 0, though it should have set it to EILSEQ (see the ISO C
standard, and it is explicitly say in the putwchar(3) man page).
It should be run with LC_CTYPE=tr_TR.UTF-8; in this
**
Build finished at 20050819-1021
FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]
FATAL: kernel too old is barfed by ld.so. It refuses to execute on
old kernel 2.4. I guess the s390 buildd debian01 uses 2.4 kernel.
Not according to uname
50 matches
Mail list logo
