Package: glibc
Version: 2.3.1-5
Severity: important
Tags: patch
This is a slightly modified patch (from the one I forwarded upstream)
for strncpy.S on ia64. It differs only in that it applies against our
2.3.1 tarball rather than cvs.
Please add to the list.
randolph
--
Randolph Chung
Debian
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:45:58PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
No, it's not buildd setup; it's the result of a glibc bug (#165456).
that bug is closed... so is this not a problem anymore?
It remains a problem until all the miscompiled packages get reuploaded.
Umm,
On Saturday 30 November 2002 18:35, Randolph Chung wrote:
Hi all,
There are still many critical, grave and serious bugs listed in BTS
against glibc. Should we try to fix some of them? :-)
* #167909: Patch for s390 build problems
Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:54:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:45:43PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
When are we aiming for a -5?
It'll be -6, and pretty soon. Jeff's doing the CVS patch right now...
I hate to push, but will the regex fixes go in as part of
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:49:15PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
When are we aiming for a -5?
It'll be -6, and pretty soon. Jeff's doing the CVS patch right now...
I hate to push, but will the regex fixes go in as part of the CVS pull?
That bug's causing a lot of segfaults, at least one of
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:10:50 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Verified this is no longer a problem
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]:
severity 165374 normal
Bug#165374: glibc upgrade breaks when /usr/lib/debug is in ld.so.conf
Severity set to `normal'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Package conflicts
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 responsibility to
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:22:45 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug fixed in 2.3.1-5
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 responsibility
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, James Troup wrote:
Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
to fix that (as best it can).
There's a precedent for doing this -
even in glibc (see it's
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:03:38 MST 2002
Log Message:
* Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- debian/patches/cvs.dpatch: Update.
Files:
changed:cvs.dpatch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:07:47 MST 2002
Log Message:
Update 0list
Files:
changed:changelog
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:07:47 MST 2002
Log Message:
Update 0list
Files:
changed:0list
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just updated the cvs.dpatch - before this can go out,
glibc22-getaddrinfo needs to be updated and then uncommented in 0list.
Basically the 5th hunk in the file has been substantively rewritten in
glibc, and it just needs to be updated. With this update in CVS, I'm
hoping I'll have time to do it
reopen 170385
thanks
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, James Troup wrote:
Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
to fix that (as best it can).
There's a precedent for doing this -
Package: glibc
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2
debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
the package. Additionally, the copyright file
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 170385
Bug#170385: libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other
packages
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 165881 [hppa] EAGAIN != EWOULDBLOCK, breaks various programs
Bug#165881: telnetd aborts when EAGAIN returned from writev
Changed Bug title.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
Package: glibc
Version: 2.3.1-5
Severity: important
Tags: patch
This is a slightly modified patch (from the one I forwarded upstream)
for strncpy.S on ia64. It differs only in that it applies against our
2.3.1 tarball rather than cvs.
Please add to the list.
randolph
--
Randolph Chung
Debian
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:45:58PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
No, it's not buildd setup; it's the result of a glibc bug (#165456).
that bug is closed... so is this not a problem anymore?
It remains a problem until all the miscompiled packages get reuploaded.
Umm,
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 169919 - pending
Bug#169919: FTBFS on s390
Tags were: pending
Tags removed: pending
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
On Saturday 30 November 2002 18:35, Randolph Chung wrote:
Hi all,
There are still many critical, grave and serious bugs listed in BTS
against glibc. Should we try to fix some of them? :-)
* #167909: Patch for s390 build problems
Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:54:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:45:43PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
When are we aiming for a -5?
It'll be -6, and pretty soon. Jeff's doing the CVS patch right now...
I hate to push, but will the regex fixes go in as part of
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:49:15PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
When are we aiming for a -5?
It'll be -6, and pretty soon. Jeff's doing the CVS patch right now...
I hate to push, but will the regex fixes go in as part of the CVS pull?
That bug's causing a lot of segfaults, at least one of
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:10:50 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Verified this is no longer a problem
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]:
severity 165374 normal
Bug#165374: glibc upgrade breaks when /usr/lib/debug is in ld.so.conf
Severity set to `normal'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Package conflicts
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 responsibility to
Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:22:45 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug fixed in 2.3.1-5
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 responsibility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:
I would be really worried that if we did this that we'd be forced to
conflict with every package that at some version relied on undefined
behaviour in glibc. Sadly, I don't think there's a solution to this
that wouldn't result in just as
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, James Troup wrote:
Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
to fix that (as best it can).
There's a precedent for doing this -
even in glibc (see it's existing conflict lines) and I have no idea
what potential grief
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, James Troup wrote:
Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
to fix that (as best it can).
There's a precedent for doing this -
even in glibc (see it's
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:03:36 MST 2002
Log Message:
* Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- debian/patches/cvs.dpatch: Update.
Files:
changed:changelog
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:03:38 MST 2002
Log Message:
* Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- debian/patches/cvs.dpatch: Update.
Files:
changed:cvs.dpatch
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Tue Dec 3 18:07:47 MST 2002
Log Message:
Update 0list
Files:
changed:0list
I just updated the cvs.dpatch - before this can go out,
glibc22-getaddrinfo needs to be updated and then uncommented in 0list.
Basically the 5th hunk in the file has been substantively rewritten in
glibc, and it just needs to be updated. With this update in CVS, I'm
hoping I'll have time to do it
reopen 170385
thanks
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, James Troup wrote:
Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
to fix that (as best it can).
There's a precedent for doing this -
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 170385
Bug#170385: libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps
other packages
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
37 matches
Mail list logo
