Já chegou o novo Nokia 7650

2002-08-11 Thread informacao
LOJADOTELEMOVEL.COM 12 de Agosto 2002 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com ][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][ BOAS FÉRIAS ][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][ --Ouça rádio e mantenha-se atento às chamadas Onde quer que se encontre, não perca o contacto com quem lhe liga. Auriculares com rádio FM stere

Re: work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 11:11:51PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Daniel, > Ok. I re-read you message and follow it now. The problem > with using the versioning fixup if it doesn't go into > gcc 3.2 is that the sister patch required for glibc is unlikely > to go into glibc-2-2-branch eithe

Re: work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread Jack Howarth
Daniel, Ok. I re-read you message and follow it now. The problem with using the versioning fixup if it doesn't go into gcc 3.2 is that the sister patch required for glibc is unlikely to go into glibc-2-2-branch either so we will have to add both in by hand. I'm not sure what happens if you u

Re: work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread Jack Howarth
Daniel, I don't quite understand how to read what you just wrote. Are you saying that if FSF GCC ships without Franz's versioning changes for gcc 3.2 that you will oppose adding them in later as patches to debian or what? Personally I am agnostic on this as the only example Franz has given me

Re: work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 10:19:12PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > gotom, > Could we possibly hold off on 2.2.5-14 until gcc 3.2 is > officially released? Each debian arch will need to carefully > evaluate what sort of libgcc-compat patches they will need > for building with gcc-3.2. Currently on

re: work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread Jack Howarth
gotom, Could we possibly hold off on 2.2.5-14 until gcc 3.2 is officially released? Each debian arch will need to carefully evaluate what sort of libgcc-compat patches they will need for building with gcc-3.2. Currently only ppc has its libgcc-compat patches in glibc-2-2-branch (I think that

apache 1.3.26 needs libdb1 removed from libc6 2.2.5-13

2002-08-11 Thread Mikhail Romanenko
In /usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog.Debian.gz of libc6_2.2.5-13_i386.deb Ben Collins wrote: [...] - Remove db1 compat library. The only user I know of this is coda. Coda can include it's own version of the library now. I've emailed the coda maintainer. [...] but apache (apache_1.3.26-1_i386.deb)

Bug#155939: The dependencies of libc6 must handle packages that break without db1

2002-08-11 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:34:13AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:14:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:56:30AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Sounds like a good idea. Someone has already offered to do exactly this > > > (and please don't use th

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread Carlos O'Donell
GOTO, > Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > glibc22-hppa-unwind.dpatch > > > 2.2 CVS:not in > > > 2.3 CVS:not in > > > Comment:After checking it's ok or not, then submit to upstream > > > if it's correct. This patch is applied only kernel > > >

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:49:30 +0200, Michael Fedrowitz wrote: > > So, we should keep applying only the below patch as Debian specific? > > [...] > > And the same for lchown, see below for the full patch. Thanks! I've modified 'glibc22-m68k-compat.dpatch' with your patch in glibc CVS. -- gotom

work for glibc 2.2.5-14

2002-08-11 Thread GOTO Masanori
Hi, I tagged the snapshot of release glibc 2.2.5-13 as 'glibc_2_2_5-13'. Now we've started to make 2.2.5-14. I plan to update debian/patches/glibc-cvs.dpatch up to today's glibc-2-2-branch upstream CVS stated by Ben Collins. This update also fixes alpha build failure pointed out by Jeff Bailey.

cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom

2002-08-11 Thread Debian GLibc CVS Master
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches who:gotom time: Sun Aug 11 07:19:31 PDT 2002 Log Message: - patches/sh-sysdep.dpatch: Added the patch to compile for sh[34] sh[34]eb. Closes: #156273 - patches/glibc22-m68k-compat.dpatch: Newer m68k debian specific compatib

cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom

2002-08-11 Thread Debian GLibc CVS Master
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Sun Aug 11 07:19:30 PDT 2002 Log Message: - patches/sh-sysdep.dpatch: Added the patch to compile for sh[34] sh[34]eb. Closes: #156273 - patches/glibc22-m68k-compat.dpatch: Newer m68k debian specific compatibility pa

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:44:39 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > glibc22-hppa-unwind.dpatch > > 2.2 CVS:not in > > 2.3 CVS:not in > > Comment:After checking it's ok or not, then submit to upstream > > if it's correct. This patch is applied only

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread Michael Fedrowitz
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 10:22:36PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: Hi, > So, we should keep applying only the below patch as Debian specific? > [...] And the same for lchown, see below for the full patch. -Michael diff -urN glibc-2.2.5.orig/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/chown.c glibc-2.2.5/sysd

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:47:41 -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > string2-pointer-arith.dpatch > > 2.2 CVS:not in > > 2.3 CVS:not in > > Comment:I tested sample programs (compiled with gcc-2.95, 3.0, > > 3.1) stated in #45824, #44491, #44697, but I c

cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom

2002-08-11 Thread Debian GLibc CVS Master
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches who:gotom time: Sun Aug 11 06:26:34 PDT 2002 Log Message: * GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - patches/sh-sysdep.dpatch: applied. Closes: #156273 Files: changed:0list added: sh-sysdep.dpatch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom

2002-08-11 Thread Debian GLibc CVS Master
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Sun Aug 11 06:26:34 PDT 2002 Log Message: * GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - patches/sh-sysdep.dpatch: applied. Closes: #156273 Files: changed:changelog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

Re: debian/patches review

2002-08-11 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:44:43 +0200, Michael Fedrowitz wrote: > > glibc22-m68k-compat.dpatch > > 2.2 CVS:not in > > 2.3 CVS:not in > > Comment:Should be merged within upstream if it's ok. > > Status: merge > > No, see bug #78937 for details. And I sup

Bug#156157: libc6: Several _dl_ symbols cannot be resolved.

2002-08-11 Thread Ben Collins
> binutils_2.12.90.0.14-1_i386.deb > libc6_2.2.5-12_i386.deb > libc6-dev_2.2.5-12_i386.deb > gcc-2.95_1%3a2.95.4-10_i386.deb These are known to work perfectly well. > nm shows those symbols in libc-2.2.5.so (all "U") and in ld-2.2.5.so > (all "B" or "T") only, for the dynamic libraries in /lib.

Bug#156273: SuperH support

2002-08-11 Thread YAEGASHI Takeshi
Package: glibc Version: 2.2.5-13 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi, I'm one of the Debian/sh porters (see http://debian.dodes.org/sh). Here's a patch for glibc's SuperH support (tested with 2.2.5-13). Please include this in the package. http://debian.dodes.org/debian/patches/sh-sysdep.

Bug#156157: libc6: Several _dl_ symbols cannot be resolved.

2002-08-11 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Please use <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to reply if at all convenient. The @tleepslib address seems to not be working (the University CC won't give me an MX? or maybe it's our packet filcher). If not, I'll check the website, but I won't respond as quickly in that case. > "ben" = Ben Collins <[EMAIL