On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:51:45PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:17:27 +0400,
> Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Package: libc6-sparc64
> > > > Version: 2.3.2.ds1-13
> > > >
> > > > Package libc6-s
v9 is probably the most used optimized package. We cannot drop it. v9b is
used less, but it is still very important.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:07:28PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about optimization package: libc6-sparcv9 and
> libc6-sparcv9b. Both packages are prepar
> Thanks for your precious follow up.
>
> From your suggestion, normal libc6 package (that's also usable for
> pre sparcv9 archs) does not have any NPTL support, but libc6-sparcv9
> (and v9b) can have NPTL support. IIRC, you have worked for 64bit NPTL
> support on sparc, so I expect libc6-sparc6
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:26:58PM +0900, Stephen J.Turnbull wrote:
> Package: locales
> Version: 2.3.1-14
> Severity: normal
> I'm seeing the following error message when setting up locales.
>
> Setting up locales (2.3.1-14) ...
> Generating locales...
> but.may not be well tested. If you chang
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:46:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> Send /etc/locale.gen, please.
>
> I don't recall ever touching this file myself, and I am careful to
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:53:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:11 -0500,
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:46:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Which is why I said it was parsing the comments as user-supplied
> > locale entries from the file. It is a locales bug.
>
> Both locale-gen and locales.config exclude starting-#-line.
> Please provide the complete example for me unless you plan to fix it.
Why should I? This is not my bug re
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:30:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.1-14
> Severity: normal
>
> glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc32/setfsgid.c
> and
> glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc32/setfsuid.c
>
> should be copied to the
>
> glibc-2.3.1/s
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:06:19PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:22:32 +0200,
> Alexander Koch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 June 2003 18:33:22 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > You can get the (a bit old) 2.3.2 version at:
> > >
> > > http://people.debian.org/~gotom/2.3.2-1/
> > >
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:57:29PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 08:40:29AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > You have to check the kernel version in this case. There's no way around
> > it.
>
> Or just mount devpts always..
That might be a be
(Cc, I am not on the list)
#ldso-disable-hwcap - remove due to disabling hwcap is not good way.
I'm wondering what about this patch is not a good way? For us to support
optimized libraries, it's the only way we can do upgrades.
Is there a better way? If not, then I want this re-enabled, so
> > > Matthias, and could you tell me gcc-3.3 is really stable for all
> > > architectures? I heard that BenC claimed gcc-3.3 was broken for
> > > sparc64...
> >
> > Yes, it's broken. Sparc's been downgraded to 3.2 as default until
> > davem has time to fix 3.3.
>
> that should be rechecked wit
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> > v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
> &g
> If this bug is occured by kernel changes, then this bug should be
> reassigned to kernel-image-2.4.21-{sun4*,sparc*} package.
>
> debian-sparc people, do you know that 2.4.21 sparc kernel has incomplete
> trap routine? Bugs#203322 and #203324 say something about this:
>
> #203322: python2.2:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:01:34PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Hi Aleksi,
>
> I also mail CC-ed to debian-glibc lists and BenC.
>
> At Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:10:23 +0300,
> Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > There's a package called libc6-sparc64 and I was wondering if you
> > wou
> >From the messages on the mailing list I got the impression that sun4m
> was facing the same fate of obsoletion as i386+ in Debian. So what
> you're saying is that there is yet hope for sun4m?
No, sun4m is not facing removal. I have no idea where you would get
that. However, sun4c and sun4m-no-h
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 12:45:20PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This should certainly be discussed with the libc maintainers before
> making such a proposal. I am sure that they did not take the decision
> lightly.
>
> > I wish to change Debian policy regarding libc and the kernel sources.
> > T
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:40:57AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Oct 26, 1999 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the real argument should be, to have something that allows the
> > users to specify their own headers without libc-dev overwriting the
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 11:10:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does adhering to a policy diminish the usefulness of the system? This
> should always be seriously considered.
Not when policy is aiding in stability.
Ben
package is generated.
--
---===-=-==-=---=--------=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
n page, please
reassign this bug to the manpages-dev package (which is not maintained as
part of glibc).
Thanks,
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=-------=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you confirm that this bug does or does not exist anymore? If it does,
would it be possible to test it with a newer version of libc6 (such as the
potato 2.1.3 version)?
Thanks,
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that
Does this problem still exist? I have not seen any sign of it, so if it
has gone (because of glibc 2.1.2 or 2.1.3), then I'll close the bug
report.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- D
Does this bug still exist for you?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:57:39AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does this bug still exist for you?
>
> I believe that this is just a result of not having /dev/ptmx 666. Is it
> possible for libc6 to check for this?
What if for som
g set.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
pgpjQtgFQJFUF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
se packages are now also available. Thanks.
FYI, you can install these packages and then downgrade back to potato
packages without any problems (just make sure to reinstall ldso since
ldconfig is now supplied by libc6, or libc6.1 in alpha's case).
Thanks,
Ben
--
---===-=-==
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 10:14:30AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > Ok, those packages are now also available. Thanks.
> >
> > FYI, you can install these packages and then downgrade back to potato
> > package
7;t, it has issues
building glibc. If the above works ok, and you are building as root, try:
/build/source/glibc-2.1.92/m68k-linux/obj/elf/ld.so.1 \
/build/source/glibc-2.1.92/m68k-linux/obj/libc.so
That should produce some nice information on the library.
--
---=
of
/lib/libc.so.6, which causes some conflicts). I should put something in
the debian/rules to force this issue (check for the env var that fakeroot
sets).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---======-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... --
rated wrong.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
What arch are you using?
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
me to re-install all my programs
> only because of StarOffice.
>
> Is there some some way to go around this problem ?
Partial upgrade to potato (2.2).
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -
locales_2.1.3-13.
Yeah, locales 2.1.3-13 is there, perhaps something is weird with the
Packages file and it is not seeing it.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ecific directories, and a dpkg friendly update-ld.so.cache
script that works similar to the update-menus script, but it has to
contend with other things.
Ben Collins
--
---===-=-==-=---=====----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic v
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:03:04PM -0400, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Other notes about the new glibc:
> >
> > * nss1 compat is gone
>
> We'll also have to update base-files so that /etc/nsswitch.conf n
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 05:50:02AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:46:08 -0400
> > Well, here it comes. Glibc 2.1.94, hot of the glibc release process. I'm
> > currently building i386, pow
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 05:54:23PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:27:24PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:03:04PM -0400, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> &
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:03:04PM -0400, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Other notes about the new glibc:
> >
> > * nss1 compat is gone
>
> We'll also have to update base-files so that /etc/nsswitch.conf n
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 05:15:12PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > BAH! You people confused me! libnss_compat.so is still there. I was
> > talking about the nss-v1 2.0.3 compatibility modules from glibc 2.0.x.
>
> > This is n
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:50:48AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:19:58 -0400
> > > * locale package have some missing conflicts/replaces entries.
> > > Change your locale.deb package to
> >
;
> -christian-
GLibc 2.1.94 was installed today. It'll be a few days before things settle
down enough to use it though (gcc needs to be installed with new libstdc++
and nss_db needs to get in aswell).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/
>
> So, you should modify debian/package-rules/locales.mk to install
> $(install_root)$(libdir)/locale in $(tmpdir)/[EMAIL PROTECTED](libdir)/. too.
>
Thanks, I'll get that taken care of.
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben C
se libgdbm and "#include "
--
---===-=-==-=---=--------=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ll keep locale/i18n users from having to install ~20Megs
(~7megs download) just to have one locale.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---=--------=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMA
needs? Something
> like:
That blows the whole point. People would still have to download the whole
damn thing.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ot;
use "-B" instead of "-b"
--
---===-=-==-=========---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
has since changed to using a
different mechanism (check the latest version).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
bviously there
> may be other reasons to upgrade).
Yes it should, just to fix this. Versioned symbols and their solution for
binary compatibility, ensured that everything will still run as it did
before. It does not mean that things wont have to be rebuilt to allow
linking.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ething bad every day I guess.
Heh, I'd rather have this than have to recompile all applications because
versioned symbols did not exist to begin with. Atleast with this scheme,
we have an upgrade path (that wasn't there for the libc5 -> libc6
changeover).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:37:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > Not everything has to be recompiled. Just libs that use obsolete symbols
> > (ones that have changed to weak symbols for compatibility, but now have
> > newer versions of that symbol). We had
ely installed libglib package.
>
> I installed that package again but it still doesn't generate glib-config
> script.
>
> Does anybody know solution?
a) Glib != GLibC
b) Install libglib-dev
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=-
x27;s i386 that's
> having this problem) :-(
This is a problem, and I have it fixed and am uploading a new set tonight.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
//ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=========---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
r_hton.c, line 76) seems to call it
> with only 4 parameters (as fct) :
>
> while (no_more == 0)
> {
> char buffer[1024];
> status = (*fct) (hostname, ðerent, buffer, sizeof buffer);
> no_more = __nss_next (&nip, "gethostton_r", (void **)
2.2.1. I'll back port a fix for 2.1.3 in
potato (basically it should pass &errno as the last param).
--
-------===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ions
to dpkg-buildpackage, but you will still have other issues if you don't
follow my steps.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
rnel headers or do I
> still have to do the job myself?
GLibc 2.2.x in Debian has been compiled against 2.4.x headers for
several months now. Install either 2.2.1 from testing, or 2.2.2 from
unstable.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---=----=-=--
/ Ben Co
/ld.so.preload, or the
ld.so preload manager package).
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
rimitives like s_connect, s_snd too?
This question is probably better for the glibc lists, and the glibc docs
itself:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... --
/usr/lib
I'll see if I can write a patch for this soon.
--
---=======-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
es to
> actuel verions (the last update was 5 mins ago).
Run "make mrproper". The lxdialog program needs to be recompiled. I
would hardly call this one program "anything", since I'm sure other
programs can be compiled.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
>
> main(){return(0);}
>
Yeah, reinstall libc6 and libc6-dev. You have some odd inconsistency in
your packages.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=------
/ Ben Collins -- .
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> Hello Ben,
> * Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010511 17:25]:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> > >
> > > main(){return(0);}
> > >
> >
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:42:19AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> Hello Ben,
> * Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010512 06:17]:
> > What version of the libc6 and libc6-dev packages do you have installed?
> > What version of gcc, gcc-2.95, binutil
is not from glibc 2.2.3. Please
> check *all* your ld-linux.so.2 files.
Just saw this on libc-alpha aswell. If there are extra ld-linux.so.2's
laying around, they aren't from Debian packages.
Try doing:
ldconfig -p | grep ld-linux.so.2
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=
hat it does
need, to a file local to samba, and then include that.
Ben
--
-------===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 08:45:07PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> Hi,
> * Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010513 19:39]:
> > Just saw this on libc-alpha aswell. If there are extra ld-linux.so.2's
> > laying around, they aren't from Debian packages.
> &
out
problems, and I am using 2.2.3-5 aswell.
Ben
--
---===-=-==-=====---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
bit libs.
Are you exporting CC=gcc-3.0?
--
---===-=-==-=---=====----=-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 02:07:41AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 04:19:21PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> > I've conducted some tests building glibc-2.2.3+nis patch with gcc-2.95-4
> > from Debian unstable and some local builds of gcc-3.0. After reading
quot;finding" anything. They are
responsible for defining them. If ppc doesn't have 2.4 kernel headers,
there's the bug, not in glibc.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=========---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux
around it.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---=----=-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
h for dso_handle. Without them, you will get a broken glibc.
Why not just install the gcc-3.0 packages from unstable?
--
.--===-=-==-=---=----=-=-.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
ld from source on
> potato (given that I have the right tool versions).
YOU DON'T. Email the glibc list, and they will tell you the same thing.
Glibc 2.2.x requires gcc 2.95.4+patches or gcc-3.0.x.
Do you not believe me?
--
.--===-=-==-=-------=---
omething you have
done before, and is well above the trivial mark), you are better off
taking advantage of all our efforts and just upgrading to testing :)
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
rses5-dev and "man tputs"
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-----.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
want, or
wait for 2.2.5-1 within a few days.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-----.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
opers. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see what they
think.
Ben
--
.--===-=-==-=====-------==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
cross-compiler for mk86 so the rebuild would
> go faster?
Email debian-m68k and ask them.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-.
/ Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
ile ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference
That looks suspiciously like mozilla is using an internal glibc symbol
that is no longer available. File a bug on mozilla.
--
.--===-=-==-=---==-=-----.
/ Ben Collins--D
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 04:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Current glibc (2.2.5-4) was built against 2.4.16 kernel headers, which
> are missing . 2.4.18 kernel headers appear to have this file
> again. Can we get glibc rebuilt, please? GDB depends on this file.
FYI, 2.2.5-5 will be up
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 02:12:51PM +0200, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
> Is there an easy way to recreate the source of glibc that works with the
> binary debug package ??
>
> Is it just unpack the org tar and apply every patch in the debian/patch
> directory or...?
apt-get source libc6
cd glibc-*
d
The Glibc package is now in CVS, CVSROOT=:ext:@cvs.debian.org:/cvs/glibc.
Module is glibc-package. You'll need the glibc_2.2.5.orig.tar.gz tarball
from the archive to go with it.
Those three folks that I emailed about helping to work on things. Knock
yourself out on the BTS :)
I suggest doing th
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Original-Sender: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:18:12 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report
- Forwarded message from Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#154375: finger dumps core about '+' in /etc/passwd
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
reassign 154375 libc6
quit
On Fri, Jul 26, 200
t@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:03:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 154518
X-Debian-PR-Package: libc6
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
From: Paolo Benvenuto <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-From: "Drew Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Original-Sender: Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resen
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 12:14:05PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Thinking about it a little further, I noticed the current debconf question
> for selecting locale is already dynamic, adding the contents of
> /etc/locale.gen to those from /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED. In this case,
> rather than having
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 04:12:22PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>If this hasn't been done yet to the glibc cvs, I don't
> see a checkin message regarding it, could we please have
> Debian bug 152866 fixed. There is a simple fix to this
> problem which has prevented recent glibc builds from
> fin
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:33:04 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 154967
X-Debian-PR-Package: libc6
X-Debian-PR-Key
ames Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:33:06 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 155100
X-Debian-PR-Package: glibc-d
We need to get the current -13 in CVS out the door to unstable real
soon. Any of my new minions want to take on releasing a new glibc upon
the masses?
Basically just do a compile on your particular arch from the CVS. Check
the output of log-test- after the build is complete. There's
always an erro
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> I'm a little concerned by the number of patches in the glibc packages.
> What do you think of the idea of requiring from here in that the
> description contain a note saying either (i) This is a backport from
> CVS or (ii) why this patc
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 10:23:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > I'm a little concerned by the number of patches in the glibc packages.
> > What do you think of the idea of requiring from here in that the
> >
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 12:23:27PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 10:23:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >>On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> >>>I'm a little concerned by the number of patch
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 12:47:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Jeff Bailey wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 08:42:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> >>We need to get the current -13 in CVS out the door to unstable real
> >>soon. Any of my new minions want to t
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:20:37PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> >>BTW, some patches or bugs are already in upstream.
> >>I contacted to Ulrich yesterday when 2.2.6 would be released.
> >>The answer is "not decided yet, working 2.3 is more
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:48:50AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >
> > It's ok to leave the CVS files prior to building, since dpkg-source
> > ignores them.
> >
> > Any takers?
> >
>
> Ben,
>
> I'd love run through the HPPA build. I'm a parisc drone, and I just
> messaged willy (Matthew Wilc
>
> I notice that this doesn't appear to be true for cross-builds
> (dpkg-buildpackage.org -ahurd-i386 ... had CVS files in the final
> deb). I'll work up a patch when I get back from vacation in a couple
> weeks.
>
-i[]filter out files to ignore diffs of.
De
1 - 100 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
