On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:17:34PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> I second it to move from libc6-prof to libc6-dev (not libc6). It
> needs additional conflicts (like moving getconf from libc6-dev to
> libc6), we should do in the next update.
Oh, you're right - I didn't notice that libc6 was sugges
At Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:36:03 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > At Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:19:22 +0100,
> > Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote:
> > > Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6.
> > > It's precious even without lib*_p.a.
> >
> > Why? We everytime need concrete reason to chan
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 02:50:06PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> severity 280030 wishlist
> thanks
>
> At Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:19:22 +0100,
> Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote:
> > Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6.
> > It's precious even without lib*_p.a.
>
> Why? We everytim
severity 280030 wishlist
thanks
At Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:19:22 +0100,
Miroslaw Kwasniak wrote:
> Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6.
> It's precious even without lib*_p.a.
Why? We everytime need concrete reason to change something like this
because libc6 affects a lot
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 280030 wishlist
Bug#280030: libc6: sprof location
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bu
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-18
Severity: normal
Hi,
Please move sprof from libc6-prof to libc6-dev or even to libc6.
It's precious even without lib*_p.a.
Mirek
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (995, 'testing'), (910, 'unstable'), (1, 'experi
6 matches
Mail list logo
