On Sat, 7 May 2011 16:00:36 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
* The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old programs keep working
but new programs cannot be linked with the routines in libc anymore.
Programs in need of RPC functionality must be linked against
Tom Lane wrote:
but it hasn't done anything for the problem that packages that actually
need RPC functionality will now FTBFS for lack of a BuildRequires on
libtirpc, if not need actual source patches (maybe they were assuming
netdb.h would pull in rpc/netdb.h, for instance). And if they
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
but it hasn't done anything for the problem that packages that actually
need RPC functionality will now FTBFS for lack of a BuildRequires on
libtirpc, if not need actual source patches (maybe they were assuming
netdb.h would pull in
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:52:35AM -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net wrote:
Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well, here's NEWS:
* The RPC implementation in libc is
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:52 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net wrote:
Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well,
Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
No the question is what do the glibc maintainers think they are doing
introducing changes like this in a branched release. This sort of stuff
should be in rawhide.
These guys are in
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
Dave that this looks like development material, not near-release bug
fixing. It's particularly bad
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
Dave that this looks like development material, not
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
Dave
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
sounds like a perfectly good reason to file negative karma on the
'revised' update, then. Really - if you think the update is causing
significant problems, file negative karma, raise a stink about it. We
don't have to accept the update.
Done, but
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
sounds like a perfectly good reason to file negative karma on the
'revised' update, then. Really - if you think the update is causing
significant problems, file negative karma, raise a stink about
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com said:
In fact, you can see this has already happened:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-11
has -6 karma at present. When it hit -3, it got unpushed.
Yeah, but -10 had the drop of RPC, so the damage is already done.
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 23:27 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com said:
In fact, you can see this has already happened:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-11
has -6 karma at present. When it hit -3, it got unpushed.
Yeah,
Just a quick FYI:
If you haven't already gotten Fedora 15's latest glibc-headers package,
you may want to wait for 2.13.90-11. Here's why:
glibc-headers-2.13.90-10.x86_64 no longer includes any of
the /usr/include/rpc/*.h files.
Contrast with glibc-headers-2.13.90-9.x86_64, where there are 18:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net wrote:
Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well, here's NEWS:
* The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old programs keep working
but new programs cannot be linked with
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pete Zaitcev zait...@redhat.com wrote:
The question is: what is TI-RPC and where one finds it?
Is it even packaged in Fedora?
It's the libtirpc package.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:52 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net wrote:
Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well, here's NEWS:
* The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old
17 matches
Mail list logo
