I did a bit of hacking this evening...
only to find more compiler bugs, and workarounds :-)
The glibc head hppa-linux testsuite baseline looks like this:
make[2]: [/libc-tls-nptl/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
make[2]: *** [/libc-tls-nptl/io/tst-fstatat.out] Error 1
make[2]: *** [/libc-tls-
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.26
> # use an existing version from the glibc changelog
> close 214387 2.3.5-1
Bug#214387: libc6: writev() returns -1 with errno == 0
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 14:59 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:03:21PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Both linux-kernel-headers in etch and amd64-libs-dev in sarge
> > provide /usr/include/asm/bootsetup.h (among others), leading to a hiccup
> > during sarge->etch upgrade if
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:29:25PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Pierre HABOUZIT said:
> > I also have a hard time understanding why having 1000+ virtualhosts in
> > apache would create such problems (except if you listen of 1000+
> > different ports btw, but I don't t
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 07:23:04PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> This version was uploaded to 'experimental' exactly to find out
> possibly portability problems, e.g. with kfreebsd and hurd ;)
> So I suppose that was a good move.
>
> Martin Zobel-Helas dixit:
>
> >> /usr/include/sys/stat.h:217:
On 2/5/07, Guy Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also what is the current status of NPTL on HPPA. Last time I tried it
> was building but they were some failures in the testsuite. I am
> currently building a test version here. Is it something stable enough
> that it can be used "in production"?
tag 377416 + moreinfo
thanks
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: libc6-dev
> Version: 2.3.6-15
> Severity: important
>
> # if !defined __cplusplus && __GNUC_PREREQ (3, 3)
> # define __THROW __attribute__ ((__nothrow__))
> # define __NTH(fc
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 377416 + moreinfo
Bug#377416: __THROW defined in is broken with GCC 3.3 and above.
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:53:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line tagging 364037
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 re
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:48:39 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Again this thing :(
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
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:59:35 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Race condition between fork() and exit() when using
pthread_atfork() from a shared library
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> forwarded 336608 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3973
Bug#336608: libc6: malloc_stats and mallinfo gives wrong values with
memory-allocatiion >4GB on amd64
Noted
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 311370 + moreinfo
Bug#311370: Unwanted "security" precautions in nss_compat
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(admini
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 351366 + wontfix
Bug#351366: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS)
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> severity 351366 wishlist
Bug#351366: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS)
Severity set to `wishlist' from `important'
>
This one time, at band camp, Pierre HABOUZIT said:
> I also have a hard time understanding why having 1000+ virtualhosts in
> apache would create such problems (except if you listen of 1000+
> different ports btw, but I don't think it would be a very clever setup
> anyway :])
Because you have an
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:34:58 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line 127.000.000.001 is dead, long live 127.0.0.1, or "hostname:
Unknown host"
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
tag 351366 + wontfix
severity 351366 wishlist
thanks
> This causes FTBFS in packages with such (overstrict IMHO) CFLAGS.
Yes, it's quite a bad idea to ship code with -Werror. Developping with
heavy-strong CFLAGS is good, shipping with them is always a bad idea as
gcc could evolve in a direction
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> forwarded 223110 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1148
Bug#223110: Race condition between fork() and exit() when using
pthread_atfork() from a shared library
Noted
tag 311370 + moreinfo
thanks
> nss_compat module recently started to ignore groups with under 1000 gids
> and there are no means to configure it mentioned in the documentation.
> As a result any network groups inherited from old times where 500 was
> a popular cutoff will not be visible without
tag 307640 + unreproducible moreinfo
thanks
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:12:46PM +0900, Kyuma Ohta wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Severity: Important
> Version: 2.3.2.ds1-21
> Tags: sid
> Arch: amd64
>
>
> I'm building and using mythtv at pure64 environment,
> but locking server many times.
> After u
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:25:35 +0100
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also what is the current status of NPTL on HPPA. Last time I tried it
> was building but they were some failures in the testsuite. I am
> currently building a test version here. Is it something stable enough
> that it c
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 307640 + unreproducible moreinfo
Bug#307640: [x86_64] pthread_rwlock_init do not reklease his lock,
Tags were: sid
Tags added: unreproducible, moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracki
Hi all,
I spent the last week-end trying to get the Debian glibc 2.5 package
built with linuxthreads and TLS support on HPPA. And it was successfull!
The packages should be available in the experimental repository when the
HPPA autobuilder have built it (my build was a bit hackish).
FYI, I used b
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-05 21:37:43 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1942
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/control
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/control.in/main
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/deb
reassign 337253 libnss-ldap
thanks
Not only the bug is reproducible here, but it's also definitely an
libnss-ldap problem, it seems there is some awkward dead lock problem,
I've not fully been able to tackle down tough, but that really goes deep
into the nssldap internals.
what is curious tho
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 337253 libnss-ldap
Bug#337253: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args
Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `libnss-ldap'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking sy
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> found 337253 2.3.6.ds1-11
Bug#337253: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args
Bug marked as found in version 2.3.6.ds1-11.
>
End of message, stopping processing here
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-05 20:08:00 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1941
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/kfreebsd/local-sysdeps.diff
Log:
* patches/kfreebsd/local-sysdeps.diff: update to revision 1893 (from
glibc-bsd).
Modified:
glibc-package/bra
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:01:52 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line tagging 315737
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 re
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-05 20:00:57 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1940
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk
Log:
Simplify debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk by removing nptl flavour stuff
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules.d/debhe
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> tags 223110 confirmed
Bug#223110: Race condition between fork() and exit() when using
pthread_atfork() from a shared library
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: confirmed
>
End of messa
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:29:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#211047: libc6 - ttyname fails with more than 21 allocated
pts
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
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:33:22 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#214387: Removing -lpthread from link line avoids the
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 402968 + moreinfo
Bug#402968: After upgrade nscd dies
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs d
tag 330105 + wontfix
severity 330105 wishlist
thanks
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 06:51:19AM +0700, Damir R. Islamov wrote:
> Package: libc6-dev
> Version: 2.3.5-6
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
>
> In a web server with ore than 1000 Virtual Hosts in /var/log/apache2/error.log
> could be seen mul
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 330105 + wontfix
Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small
Tags were: patch
Tags added: wontfix
> severity 330105 wishlist
Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small
Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal
tag 402968 + moreinfo
thanks
I run a similar setup and do not have the behaviour you mention. Could
it be possible to get some kind of backtrace whatsoever (with libc6-dbg
installed btw).
an ltrace may also be of great use, thanks.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:54:56 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#403216: dpkg-shlibdeps: Fails to check
/emul/ia32-linux/[usr/]lib
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:20:02 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line reopening 295680
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 Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:27:18 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#304413: libc6: last update broke StarOffice52
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
Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:04:51 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line nscd in sarge creates sockets in wrong location
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 Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:02:48AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> reassign 391529 tzdata
> severity 391529 serious
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> I am now able to reproduce this bug. The problem is that the postinst of
> tzdata ask a question to the user, not via debconf, so it is not
> displayed.
>
> T
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:19:51 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409784: tzdata is wrong for epoch in Europe/London
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
Package: tzdata
Version: 2006p-1
localtime() resolves time==0 as Jan 1 1970 01:00 instead of 00:00 in
the Europe/London timezone. This was in etch; it also does this in
Debian sarge and gentoo, so I guess it's an old upstream bug.
It may be a bug in localtime() but certainly depends on the named
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#394128: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#403270: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#374945: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#397813: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#391372: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#395427: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#404379: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#405738: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#403980: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#391858: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#381294: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4
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 yo
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb
glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz
glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc
libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp4_am
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libc6-i386_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override
says standard.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and
glibc_2.5-0exp4_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc
glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz
glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb
locales_2.5-0exp4_all.deb
libc6_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb
libc6-dev_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb
libc6-prof_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb
libc6-pic_2
Good day to you sir,
School isnt for everyone!
This is why we have invented a program where anyone can get a 4year De.gree in
less then 2weeks, 100.%verifiale.
For more information .call us .24hours a day 7 days a week 206-984-2310
Thanks,
Evangelina Alvarado
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-05 10:43:38 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1939
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series
Log:
Small fix
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series
==
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-05 09:59:30 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1938
Added:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/cvs-lt-update.diff
Removed:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/local-linuxthreads-sigprocmask.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/bra
61 matches
Mail list logo
