Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> severity 325471 serious
Bug#325471: libc6: Error in /etc/init.d/glibc.sh at line 100
Severity set to `serious'.
> severity 325511 serious
Bug#325511: libc6: bashisms in /etc/init.d/gl
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-18
Severity: important
can't upgrade libc6, it sounds conflict with base-files.
my base-files version is: 3.1.0.0.1.pure64
$ sudo aptitude install libc6
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree
Reading extended state information
Initializing package
Just a quick note to say that the sed patch has a typo in it (the
close curly brace).
Adrian
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- GPG key available on public key servers
Debian GNU/Linux - the maintainable distribution -*- www.debian.org
Avoid working with children, animals and Microsoft "operati
Hi,
First off, many thanks for your hard work on the debian glibc packages.
It is much appreciated.
Second, I have some comments on the packaging. I hope you'll take this
as constructive criticism.
1. /etc/init.d/glibc.sh is not bourne shell compatible, despite it's
#!/bin/sh shebang lin
At Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:16:14 -0400,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> #317082 is "moreinfo". Has a decision been made on how to fix this?
> If not, frankly it should be downgraded to "important", because it only
> hurts biarch -- meaning it isn't actually a blocker for any single
> subarchitecture -- and
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 321580
Bug#321580: locales: installation fails because of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administra
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:13:48 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325533: libc6: can't upgrade
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 r
Author: gotom
Date: 2005-08-29 14:44:25 + (Mon, 29 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 1027
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/script.in/kernelcheck.sh
Log:
glibc (2.3.5-6) unstable; urgency=low
* GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* debian/script.in/k
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.3.5-4
Severity: important
Threads that have properly called pthread_detach() and pthread_exit()
are not being cleaned up and remain in the process list as
until the parent exits.
This does not occur on systems running "testing" and has appeared only
recently.
--
Here is a revised version of the patch which replaces the bash
substitution with a POSIX substitution that will work in both bash and
dash.
--- glibc.sh.orig 2005-08-29 13:29:42.0 -0400
+++ glibc.sh2005-08-29 13:33:19.0 -0400
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
# Note that parisc64 ke
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> [snip]
> > stable's /usr/include/linux/limits.h has NGROUPS_MAX set to 32. In
> > testing and unstable it is set to 65536.
> >
> >
> > The usermod limitation happens in stable and testing (tested with
> > th
Ah, I guess bash didn't trip over that typo during the update because it
never entered that conditional.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:18:01 -0400,
Thomas Evans wrote:
> Threads that have properly called pthread_detach() and pthread_exit()
> are not being cleaned up and remain in the process list as
> until the parent exits.
>
> This does not occur on systems running "testing" and has appeared only
> re
When you state "Upstream already moved to NPTL", do you mean the mainline libc
development, or do youe mean that Debian/alpha libc is moving to NPTL?
Thanks,
...tom
On Monday 29 August 2005 08:23 pm, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:18:01 -0400,
>
> Thomas Evans wrote:
> > Threads
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325511: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325511: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325504: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325471: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325373: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Your message dated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325471: fixed in glibc 2.3.5-6
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
Title: ofertas para este 18 septiembre
SI NO PUEDE VER ESTE CORREO POR FAVOR PRESIONE AQUÍ (
DAR TU DIRECCION DE BAJA DE ESTA PROMOCION )Acatando la nueva Ley
del Consumidor Nº 19.496 y su modificación Nº 19.955 del 2004,en su Artículo
28b, donde regula el envío de correos electrónicos("Tod
At Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:28:01 -0400,
Thomas Evans wrote:
> When you state "Upstream already moved to NPTL", do you mean the mainline
> libc
> development, or do youe mean that Debian/alpha libc is moving to NPTL?
The mainline libc, not debian alpha glibc. But I guess adding debian
alpha NPTL is
22 matches
Mail list logo
