Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-20 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Jonathan Nieder dixit: - Athlon/Opteron, VIA C3 Nehemiah, but not VIA C3 Ezra). ^ + C3 Ezla). ^ You introduced a pasto. bye, //mirabilos -- Darwinism never[…]applied to wizardkind. There's a more than fair amount of[…] stupidity

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-20 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Thorsten Glaser wrote: + C3 Ezla). ^ You introduced a pasto. Good catch. Patch attached. Index: changelog === --- changelog (révision 5393) +++ changelog (copie de travail) @@ -1,11 +1,16 @@ eglibc (2.13-38)

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-03 Thread Regid Ichira
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:08:35PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: severity 692154 minor tags 692154 + patch quit Regid Ichira wrote: Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels too? How

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-02 Thread Regid Ichira
Package: libc6-i686 Version: 2.13-35 Severity: normal Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe.

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-02 Thread Jonathan Nieder
severity 692154 minor tags 692154 + patch quit Regid Ichira wrote: Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels too? How about this patch? Thanks, Jonathan Index: changelog