Bug#418521: glibc: [INTL:eu] Debconf basque translation update

Package: glibc Severity: wishlist Tags: patch l10n Hello Atached glibc debconf template basque translation, please commit it. Thanks -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i

Bug#418545: glibc: [INTL:sv] Swedish debconf templates translation update

Package: glibc Severity: wishlist Tags: patch l10n Here is the updated Swedish debconf translation for glibc Regards, Daniel -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kern

tzdata 2007d-1 MIGRATED to testing

FYI: The status of the tzdata source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 2007b-1 Current version: 2007d-1 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. --

Bug#184048: marked as done ([m68k] binutils testsuite failures built in a glibc-2.3.1 environment)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:04:33 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line outdated bug: compiler not in debian anymore has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.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 i

Bug#137880: marked as done (libc6: ftw doesn't pass FTW_DNR if initial directory is non-enterable)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:57:31 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#137880: argh 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#154518: marked as done (libc6: timezone changed after a dist-upgrade)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:05:29 +0200 (CEST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line this is even pre-sarge, closing. 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

Bug#136876: marked as done (strptime fails if there is a timezone in the format)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:04:38 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#136876: strptime fails if there is a timezone in the format 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 i

Bug#160840: marked as done (libc6-dev: Work around for LLONG_MAX on 2.95.x in limits.h is never reached...)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:15:29 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#160840: libc6-dev: Work around for LLONG_MAX on 2.95.x in limits.h is never reached... has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem ha

Bug#162917: libc6: strftime crashes with invalid input

tag 162917 + wontfix thanks On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:05:12AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Package: libc6 > Version: 2.2.5-14.3 > Severity: normal > > strftime() causes a segmentation fault if some of the values in the tm > argument are outside of its expected range. Here is a sample program:

Processed: Re: Bug#162917: libc6: strftime crashes with invalid input

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 162917 + wontfix Bug#162917: libc6: strftime crashes with invalid input There were no tags set. Tags added: wontfix > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrat

Bug#174269: marked as done (glibc: sigsegv on call to getprotobyname)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:57:55 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line #174269: glibc: sigsegv on call to getprotobyname 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#182386: marked as done (libc6: setegid on i386 uses setregid and therefore sets saved gid)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:10:30 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#182386: libc6: setegid on i386 uses setregid and therefore sets saved gid has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Processing of glibc_2.5-1_all.changes

glibc_2.5-1_all.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: glibc_2.5-1.dsc glibc_2.5-1.diff.gz glibc-doc_2.5-1_all.deb locales_2.5-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe".

r2038 - glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian

Author: schizo Date: 2007-04-11 02:25:11 + (Wed, 11 Apr 2007) New Revision: 2038 Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules Log: remove sanity check for uploading to unstable Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/rules =

glibc_2.5-1_all.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: glibc-doc_2.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-1_all.deb glibc_2.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-1.diff.gz glibc_2.5-1.dsc to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-1.dsc locales_2.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/g/glibc/locales_2.5-1_all.deb Override entries for your pack

r2039 - in glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian: . control.in sysdeps

Author: schizo Date: 2007-04-11 02:34:16 + (Wed, 11 Apr 2007) New Revision: 2039 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/debi

Bug#413787: marked as done (libc0.3: TLS patch)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#413787: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#165417: marked as done (libc6: ldd depends on file for files with exec bit off)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165417: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#286825: marked as done (glibc: nice() should set errno=EPERM not EACCES on error)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#286825: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#226291: marked as done (libc6: generic pow(-inf, nan) gives inf instead of nan)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#226291: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#391858: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#209136: marked as done (libc6: printf %#.0g incorrect output)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209136: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#415417: marked as done (libc6: INF not accepted by strtod in Turkish locales (tr_TR.iso88599))

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#415417: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#409288: marked as done (nscd: does not start because of missing libssp.so.0)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#409288: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#312927: marked as done (glibc: Please use UTF-8 as the default locale codeset)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#312927: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#367522: marked as done (libc6: nftw "/" 0 FTW_CHDIR fails with "no such file or directory")

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#367522: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#269238: marked as done (date has Timezone-Problems.)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#377310: marked as done (gcc: [inaccurate] warning: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp')

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#377310: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#395427: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#374945: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#389084: marked as done (libc6: nasty bug in xdrmem_setpos(): signed comparison op is used for the pointers)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#389084: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#364098: marked as done (glibc_2.3.999-1(m68k/experimental):)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#364098: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#381294: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#403270: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#269238: marked as done (date has Timezone-Problems.)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#369402: marked as done (libc6-dev: inotify-syscalls.h is missing)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#369402: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#55648: marked as done (date outputs wrong things about unknown timezones)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#119540: marked as done (shellutils: date: erratic TZ handling)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#407540: marked as done (please do not conflict on ia32-libs-dev for architectures other than ia64)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#407540: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#172562: marked as done (libc6: hex floats negative exponent)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#172562: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#413095: marked as done (libc6: Typo in ldd script: refers to file_magic_regex but filename_magix_regex was set)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#413095: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#404379: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#347358: marked as done (libc6: getent skips IPv4 entries in /etc/hosts)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#347358: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#391372: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#46175: marked as done (rpcgen manual page is incorrect)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#46175: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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 re

Bug#418006: marked as done (glibc: [debconf_rewrite] Debconf templates review)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#418006: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#394128: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#397813: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#98852: marked as done (Wording error in pthread_attr_setdetachstate(3thr))

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#98852: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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 re

Bug#119540: marked as done (shellutils: date: erratic TZ handling)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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 re

Bug#55648: marked as done (date outputs wrong things about unknown timezones)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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 re

Bug#413259: marked as done (glibc: [INTL:ca] Catalan debconf templates translation update)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#413259: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#269238: marked as done (date has Timezone-Problems.)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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 re

Bug#119540: marked as done (shellutils: date: erratic TZ handling)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#55648: marked as done (date outputs wrong things about unknown timezones)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

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

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#403980: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

Bug#411132: marked as done (glibc-doc: 'man pthread_testcancel' says 'No manual entry' although there is one)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:47:04 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#411132: fixed in glibc 2.5-1 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

r2041 - glibc-package/tags

Author: schizo Date: 2007-04-11 03:09:29 + (Wed, 11 Apr 2007) New Revision: 2041 Added: glibc-package/tags/2.5-1/ Log: tag 2.5-1 Copied: glibc-package/tags/2.5-1 (from rev 2040, glibc-package/trunk) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?