El 12/02/16 a las 20:42, Brian May escribió: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]> writes: > > > yes, there was: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=814078 > > Is the BTS the appropriate place for these bugs? I don't think they come > to the LTS team who need to see them. >
... > > Look the same??? > > No, because in upstream __secure_getenv is part of GLIBC_PRIVATE, in > squeeze __secure_getenv was part of GLIBC_2.0 - So we end up putting the > code in a different spot. You can't tell this for certain just by > looking at the patch (although the references to the public symbols > should be a hint). > > I am guessing this is because they were more conservative with what they > use GLIBC_PRIVATE for back in the time of squeeze. > > Question is: Is it worth fixing this? As it is extra symbols, I don't > think it can cause any breakage other then with already running > processes. Especially as squeeze-lts support will be ending soon. > -- > Brian May <[email protected]> > Ooups! Really sorry, I needed to be even more careful. But as you said, I don't think it is worth to fix it giving the context. I'll send the regression DLA. Santiago
