Hi stable release managers,
Would you accept a fix for bug#426000 in Etch? The patch comes from
upstream CVS, and the diff could be found here:
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/stdio-common/vfscanf.c.diff?cvsroot=glibcr1=1.110.2.6r2=1.110.2.7
Cheers,
Aurelien
--
.''`. Aurelien
Your message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:06:09 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#435382: libc6: ld-linux.so segfault.
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
I don't believe it's OK to close this bug due to the following reasons:
1. It does work with /usr/lib/debug version of gtk-1.2 libraries (when
application is linked against gtk-1.2 instead of gtk-2.0).
2. It does work with /usr/lib/debug version of libc6 libraries.
3. Package description of
Hi,
As already discussed on IRC, we plan to update tzdata in Etch using a
new upstream database. This will be done in two steps:
- upload to volatile to have an update now for those who use volatile ;
- upload to stable to have an update for Etch r2.
Please find below the corresponding
FYI. I guess the consensus on the clone unwind info patch was that
GCC needed some work first, or something like that...
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: 31 Jul 2007 12:51:32 -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: libc ./ChangeLog sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/ ...
To:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:49:30PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
I don't believe it's OK to close this bug due to the following reasons:
1. It does work with /usr/lib/debug version of gtk-1.2 libraries (when
application is linked against gtk-1.2 instead of gtk-2.0).
2. It does work with
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-07-31 13:29:48 + (Tue, 31 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 2484
Added:
tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/
tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/debian/
tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/debian/changelog
tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/debian/compat
Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit :
FYI. I guess the consensus on the clone unwind info patch was that
GCC needed some work first, or something like that...
Ok, thanks I will recommit it.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-07-31 13:47:42 + (Tue, 31 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 2485
Modified:
tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/debian/changelog
Log:
Rework the changelog a bit
Modified: tzdata/branches/glibc-branch-etch/debian/changelog
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.6
package tzdata
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: tzdata
tags 431972 + pending
Bug#431972: tzdata: [INTL:ca] Catalan debconf templates translation
Tags were: l10n patch
Tags added:
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-07-31 14:07:24 + (Tue, 31 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 2486
Added:
tzdata/trunk/debian/po/ca.po
Modified:
tzdata/trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
* New Catalan debconf translation from Jord?\195?\160 Polo. closes: #431972.
Modified: tzdata/trunk/debian/changelog
Your message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:32:09 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#428083: fixed in tzdata 2007f-10
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
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-07-31 14:18:43 + (Tue, 31 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 2487
Modified:
tzdata/trunk/debian/changelog
tzdata/trunk/debian/postinst
Log:
* debian/postinst: only print Run 'dpkg-reconfigure tzdata' if you wish
to change it. message when not using
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:49:30PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
I don't believe it's OK to close this bug due to the following reasons:
1. It does work with /usr/lib/debug version of gtk-1.2 libraries (when
application is linked against gtk-1.2
Your message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:55:41 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#433869: fixed in tzdata 2007f-1etch1
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
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what.
Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I did it wrong, and now the
program does start, but the (4) above holds, right? Therefore I still
think it's a bug in
Your message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:55:41 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#433869: fixed in tzdata 2007f-1etch1
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
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what.
Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I did it wrong, and now the
program does
From: Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:00:12AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
severity 433391 grave
clone 433391 -1
reassign -1 glibc
block 433391 by -1
thanks
Building gcj or gcc-snapshot on a system downgraded to glibc-2.5
doesn't show the testsuite
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what.
Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I did it wrong, and now the
program does start, but the (4) above holds,
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what.
Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:15:58PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
Well, your answer suggests there are other programs that are allowed to
segfault. Is there a list of them so that I won't repeat mistake
reporting their segfaults as bugs in the future? ;)
The C library is simply a special case.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:20:29PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], De
bian Bug Tracking System writes:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#433870: Sarge: TimeZone: New Zealand change to daylight time transition,
which was filed against the tzdata package.
It has been closed by Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL
Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
From: Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:00:12AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
severity 433391 grave
clone 433391 -1
reassign -1 glibc
block 433391 by -1
thanks
Building gcj or gcc-snapshot on a system downgraded to glibc-2.5
doesn't show the
25 matches
Mail list logo
