reassign 218980 parted
thanks
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:01:09AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 218980 parted
Bug#218980: parted: FTBFS : probably due to new glibc and 2.6.0-test linux
kernel headers.
Bug reassigned from package `linux-kernel-headers' to `parted'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:01:09AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t was defined though.
This
reassign 218980 parted
thanks
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:01:09AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 218980 parted
Bug#218980: parted: FTBFS : probably due to new glibc and 2.6.0-test linux kernel
headers.
Bug reassigned from package `linux-kernel-headers' to `parted'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:01:09AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t was defined though.
This
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a sizeof(size_t[1]) which is the cause of the first
problem, and that it is trying to compare sizeof(t) with (1
_IOC_SIZEBITS)
which
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a sizeof(size_t[1]) which is the cause of the first
problem, and that it is
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:37:08PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:46:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:37:08PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t was defined though.
This block of definitions in libparted/linux.c looks kind of
suspicious.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a sizeof(size_t[1]) which is the cause of the first
problem, and that it is trying to compare sizeof(t) with (1 _IOC_SIZEBITS)
which is
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a sizeof(size_t[1]) which is the cause of the first
problem, and that it is
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
trying to do a
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I am a bit at a loss on how to
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:37:08PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:46:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:37:08PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:54:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 19:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it should not at least. I will investigate and see if the
linux/fs.h is where it comes from or not. I was not able to find where
the size_t was defined though.
This block of definitions in libparted/linux.c looks kind of
suspicious.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:00:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:39:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Subject: parted: FTBFS : probably due to new glibc and 2.6.0-test linux kernel
headers.
Package:
23 matches
Mail list logo
