r1938 - in glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian: . patches patches/any

Author: aurel32 Date: 2007-02-05 09:59:30 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007) New Revision: 1938 Added: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/cvs-lt-update.diff Removed: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/local-linuxthreads-sigprocmask.diff Modified: glibc-package/bra

r1939 - glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches

Author: aurel32 Date: 2007-02-05 10:43:38 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007) New Revision: 1939 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series Log: Small fix Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series ==

Bug#169161: are you broke?

Good day to you sir, School isnt for everyone! This is why we have invented a program where anyone can get a 4year De.gree in less then 2weeks, 100.%verifiale. For more information .call us .24hours a day 7 days a week 206-984-2310 Thanks, Evangelina Alvarado -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E

Processing of glibc_2.5-0exp4_amd64.changes

glibc_2.5-0exp4_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb locales_2.5-0exp4_all.deb libc6_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb libc6-dev_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb libc6-prof_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb libc6-pic_2

glibc override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libc6-i386_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says standard. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and

glibc_2.5-0exp4_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-0exp4_all.deb glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp4.diff.gz glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp4.dsc libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp4_amd64.deb to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp4_am

Bug#381294: marked as done (libc6-dev: [mipsel] POSIX_MADV_SEQUENTIAL missing from /usr/include/bits/mman.h)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#381294: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#391858: marked as done (FTBFS: gcc-4.x with glibc from experimental)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#391858: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#405738: marked as done (glibc should build-depend on binutils (>= 2.17.50))

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#405738: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#403980: marked as done (gcc-snapshot_20061217-1(sparc/experimental): FTBFS due to missing stubs-64.h)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#403980: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#395427: marked as done (glibc: spelling errors)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#395427: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#404379: marked as done (Please provide a default /etc/gai.conf)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#404379: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#391372: marked as done (please provide package to allow static link agains libc6-xen)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#391372: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#397813: marked as done (glibc_2.5-0exp3(hppa/experimental): FTBFS: thread-local storage not supported for this target)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#397813: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#374945: marked as done (ldconfig: please add an argument to specify files to update)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#374945: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#403270: marked as done (Can't step into libc functions with libc6-dbg)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#403270: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#394128: marked as done (libc6-dev: Typo in gnu/stubs.h)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:02:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#394128: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp4 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 yo

Bug#409784: tzdata is wrong for epoch in Europe/London

Package: tzdata Version: 2006p-1 localtime() resolves time==0 as Jan 1 1970 01:00 instead of 00:00 in the Europe/London timezone. This was in etch; it also does this in Debian sarge and gentoo, so I guess it's an old upstream bug. It may be a bug in localtime() but certainly depends on the named

Bug#409784: marked as done (tzdata is wrong for epoch in Europe/London)

Your message dated Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:19:51 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#409784: tzdata is wrong for epoch in Europe/London 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

Bug#391529: Etch installer freezed by tzdata

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:02:48AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > reassign 391529 tzdata > severity 391529 serious > thanks > > Hi, > > I am now able to reproduce this bug. The problem is that the postinst of > tzdata ask a question to the user, not via debconf, so it is not > displayed. > > T

Bug#345168: marked as done (Sarge version of nscd is completely broken (Fails to cache any entry))

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:04:51 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line nscd in sarge creates sockets in wrong location 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

Bug#304413: marked as done (libc6: last update broke StarOffice52)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:27:18 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#304413: libc6: last update broke StarOffice52 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

Bug#295680: marked as done (libc6: getgrname returns a result that doesn't belong to /etc/group)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:20:02 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line reopening 295680 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 responsibility to

Bug#388489: marked as done (libc6-i386: Missing /etc.ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:54:56 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#403216: dpkg-shlibdeps: Fails to check /emul/ia32-linux/[usr/]lib has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#402968: After upgrade nscd dies

tag 402968 + moreinfo thanks I run a similar setup and do not have the behaviour you mention. Could it be possible to get some kind of backtrace whatsoever (with libc6-dbg installed btw). an ltrace may also be of great use, thanks. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O

Processed: Re: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 330105 + wontfix Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small Tags were: patch Tags added: wontfix > severity 330105 wishlist Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal

Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small

tag 330105 + wontfix severity 330105 wishlist thanks On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 06:51:19AM +0700, Damir R. Islamov wrote: > Package: libc6-dev > Version: 2.3.5-6 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > > In a web server with ore than 1000 Virtual Hosts in /var/log/apache2/error.log > could be seen mul

Processed: Re: After upgrade nscd dies

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 402968 + moreinfo Bug#402968: After upgrade nscd dies There were no tags set. Tags added: moreinfo > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs d

Bug#214387: marked as done (libc6: writev() returns -1 with errno == 0)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:33:22 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#214387: Removing -lpthread from link line avoids the problem 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

Bug#211047: marked as done (libc6 - ttyname failes on systems with devfs and devpts)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:29:50 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#211047: libc6 - ttyname fails with more than 21 allocated pts 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

Processed: tagging 223110

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27 > tags 223110 confirmed Bug#223110: Race condition between fork() and exit() when using pthread_atfork() from a shared library Tags were: upstream Tags added: confirmed > End of messa

r1940 - glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules.d

Author: aurel32 Date: 2007-02-05 20:00:57 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007) New Revision: 1940 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk Log: Simplify debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk by removing nptl flavour stuff Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules.d/debhe

Bug#315737: marked as done (iconv breaks conversion at some point)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:01:52 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line tagging 315737 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 responsibility to re

r1941 - glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/kfreebsd

Author: aurel32 Date: 2007-02-05 20:08:00 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007) New Revision: 1941 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/kfreebsd/local-sysdeps.diff Log: * patches/kfreebsd/local-sysdeps.diff: update to revision 1893 (from glibc-bsd). Modified: glibc-package/bra

Processed: found 337253 in 2.3.6.ds1-11

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27 > found 337253 2.3.6.ds1-11 Bug#337253: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args Bug marked as found in version 2.3.6.ds1-11. > End of message, stopping processing here

Processed: Re: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 337253 libnss-ldap Bug#337253: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `libnss-ldap'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking sy

Bug#337253: libc6: getent hangs when called with --service=ldap args

reassign 337253 libnss-ldap thanks Not only the bug is reproducible here, but it's also definitely an libnss-ldap problem, it seems there is some awkward dead lock problem, I've not fully been able to tackle down tough, but that really goes deep into the nssldap internals. what is curious tho

r1942 - in glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian: . control.in rules.d

Author: aurel32 Date: 2007-02-05 21:37:43 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007) New Revision: 1942 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/control glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/control.in/main glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/deb

glibc 2.5 & TLS linuxthreads (+ NPTL status)

Hi all, I spent the last week-end trying to get the Debian glibc 2.5 package built with linuxthreads and TLS support on HPPA. And it was successfull! The packages should be available in the experimental repository when the HPPA autobuilder have built it (my build was a bit hackish). FYI, I used b

Processed: Re: [x86_64] pthread_rwlock_init do not reklease his lock,

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 307640 + unreproducible moreinfo Bug#307640: [x86_64] pthread_rwlock_init do not reklease his lock, Tags were: sid Tags added: unreproducible, moreinfo > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracki

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.5 & TLS linuxthreads (+ NPTL status)

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:25:35 +0100 Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also what is the current status of NPTL on HPPA. Last time I tried it > was building but they were some failures in the testsuite. I am > currently building a test version here. Is it something stable enough > that it c

Bug#307640: [x86_64] pthread_rwlock_init do not reklease his lock,

tag 307640 + unreproducible moreinfo thanks On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:12:46PM +0900, Kyuma Ohta wrote: > Package: libc6 > Severity: Important > Version: 2.3.2.ds1-21 > Tags: sid > Arch: amd64 > > > I'm building and using mythtv at pure64 environment, > but locking server many times. > After u

Bug#311370: Unwanted "security" precautions in nss_compat

tag 311370 + moreinfo thanks > nss_compat module recently started to ignore groups with under 1000 gids > and there are no means to configure it mentioned in the documentation. > As a result any network groups inherited from old times where 500 was > a popular cutoff will not be visible without

Processed: bug 223110 is forwarded to http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1148

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27 > forwarded 223110 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1148 Bug#223110: Race condition between fork() and exit() when using pthread_atfork() from a shared library Noted

Bug#351366: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS)

tag 351366 + wontfix severity 351366 wishlist thanks > This causes FTBFS in packages with such (overstrict IMHO) CFLAGS. Yes, it's quite a bad idea to ship code with -Werror. Developping with heavy-strong CFLAGS is good, shipping with them is always a bad idea as gcc could evolve in a direction

Bug#327024: marked as done (127.000.000.001 is dead, long live 127.0.0.1, or "hostname: Unknown host")

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:34:58 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line 127.000.000.001 is dead, long live 127.0.0.1, or "hostname: Unknown host" has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.

Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small

This one time, at band camp, Pierre HABOUZIT said: > I also have a hard time understanding why having 1000+ virtualhosts in > apache would create such problems (except if you listen of 1000+ > different ports btw, but I don't think it would be a very clever setup > anyway :]) Because you have an

Processed: Re: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS)

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 351366 + wontfix Bug#351366: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS) There were no tags set. Tags added: wontfix > severity 351366 wishlist Bug#351366: redundant ctermid declaration (causes FTBFS) Severity set to `wishlist' from `important' >

Processed: Re: Unwanted "security" precautions in nss_compat

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 311370 + moreinfo Bug#311370: Unwanted "security" precautions in nss_compat There were no tags set. Tags added: moreinfo > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (admini

Processed: bug 336608 is forwarded to http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3973

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27 > forwarded 336608 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3973 Bug#336608: libc6: malloc_stats and mallinfo gives wrong values with memory-allocatiion >4GB on amd64 Noted

Bug#223110: marked as done (Race condition between fork() and exit() when using pthread_atfork() from a shared library)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:59:35 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Race condition between fork() and exit() when using pthread_atfork() from a shared library has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#351629: marked as done (Recent libc6-dev broke compatibility with sarge binutils and gcc-3.3)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:48:39 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Again this thing :( 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 responsibility

Bug#364037: marked as done (libc6: memory leak in regcomp)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:53:34 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line tagging 364037 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 responsibility to re

Processed: Re: libc6-dev: __THROW defined in is broken with GCC 3.3

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 377416 + moreinfo Bug#377416: __THROW defined in is broken with GCC 3.3 and above. There were no tags set. Tags added: moreinfo > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator

Bug#377416: libc6-dev: __THROW defined in is broken with GCC 3.3

tag 377416 + moreinfo thanks On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Package: libc6-dev > Version: 2.3.6-15 > Severity: important > > # if !defined __cplusplus && __GNUC_PREREQ (3, 3) > # define __THROW __attribute__ ((__nothrow__)) > # define __NTH(fc

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.5 & TLS linuxthreads (+ NPTL status)

On 2/5/07, Guy Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also what is the current status of NPTL on HPPA. Last time I tried it > was building but they were some failures in the testsuite. I am > currently building a test version here. Is it something stable enough > that it can be used "in production"?

Bug#408850: mksh: FTBFS on experimental/alpha (Re:Log for failed build of mksh_28.9.20070118 (dist=experimental))

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 07:23:04PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > This version was uploaded to 'experimental' exactly to find out > possibly portability problems, e.g. with kfreebsd and hurd ;) > So I suppose that was a good move. > > Martin Zobel-Helas dixit: > > >> /usr/include/sys/stat.h:217:

Bug#330105: libc6-dev: __FD_SETSIZE equals to 1024 is too small

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:29:25PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Pierre HABOUZIT said: > > I also have a hard time understanding why having 1000+ virtualhosts in > > apache would create such problems (except if you listen of 1000+ > > different ports btw, but I don't t

Bug#349706: linux-kernel-headers: Needs to conflict with amd64-libs-dev 1.1

On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 14:59 +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:03:21PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > Both linux-kernel-headers in etch and amd64-libs-dev in sarge > > provide /usr/include/asm/bootsetup.h (among others), leading to a hiccup > > during sarge->etch upgrade if

Processed: closing 214387

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.26 > # use an existing version from the glibc changelog > close 214387 2.3.5-1 Bug#214387: libc6: writev() returns -1 with errno == 0 'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/

glibc nptl failure baseline update.

I did a bit of hacking this evening... only to find more compiler bugs, and workarounds :-) The glibc head hppa-linux testsuite baseline looks like this: make[2]: [/libc-tls-nptl/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[2]: *** [/libc-tls-nptl/io/tst-fstatat.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/libc-tls-