updated in the
next point release as well.
Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster
GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B |
GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B
Hi,
On Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 20:07:22 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 13:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Martin Zobel-Helas dijo [Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:31:36PM +0100]:
> > > > Chile was supposed to leave the Summer daylight savings period this
> &
Hi,
On Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 21:31:07 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> glibc/2.7-5 is ready to go into testing. It fixes bug that are present
> in the testing version, and hasn't any known regression.
>
> Could you please hint it?
done
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life
No manu
've already submitted a patch upstream and it has been integrated.
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5541
> >
> > It should be backported to Etch.
> >
>
> Is it ok to upload a glibc package with this patch to *stable*?
go ahead.
--
Hi,
> compiles correctly with an almost up to date etch alpha machine. We
> will have to wait for an alpha machine to be accessible to developpers
> again to test it further.
i can give you access to one.
Greetings
Martin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-l
Package: nscd
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5
Severity: serious
the dependency lines of nscd somehow differ
Package: nscd
- Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge4
+ Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5
Section: admin
Priority: optional
Architecture: alpha
- Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge4)
- Replaces: li
Hi,
Glibc maintainers, what is your opinion on that?
Greetings
Martin
On Fri May 11, 2007 at 14:00:17 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:25:07PM +0200, Rik Theys wrote:
> > Is there any chance to get a fix for #423369 and #423108, a memory leak
> > in both libc6 an
Hi Daniel,
On Monday, 06 Feb 2006, you wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:30:01PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package.
> >
> > Currently they are mainly done for security purposes -- but stable updates
> > should not be confined t
Hi Aurelien,
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 06:44:16AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi SRM team!
>
> Would such a fix to the glibc be accepted for a stable release?
i would be first interested, which LSB versions are effected by this. I
don't see any need for fixing newer LSB is
Hi Aurel, hi *,
the current version of glibc in proposed-updates does not seem to
compile on sparc[1]. For that reason i did not accept other archs yet.
Joey notified me yesterday evening, that locales is currently
uninstallable on all other archs and thus currently breaks builds for
debian's sta
stem Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-vserver-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
--
Martin Zobel-Helas
credativ G
Hi Matthew,
On Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004, you wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:19:21PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Well, IIRC, it is enough to use _only_ the 32bit kernel, and that would
> > make it easier for us, because we don't need an extra package in the
> > archive. But yes, your reason is
12 matches
Mail list logo
