Package: eglibc
Version: 2.13-38
Severity: grave
Justification: leaves system unusable
[Sorry for not filing this bug with reportbug, but due to this bug that
doesn't work anymore. I am also unable to sign my mail at this moment,
due to this bug.]
For building an i386-only package I libc6-amd64 w
Seems this bug was indeed already reported: 699206 and 707185. However,
it is not clear to me how I can get my system working again. Obviously,
I can not remove or create symlinks to the right location as ln and
friends don't work anymore (not to mention that sudo and getty don't help).
Seems like
So I was indeed able to recover my system by changing the symlink in
/lib64/ with an emergency USB key. For the record, after shutdown, the
system of course would not come up. I am afraid that people with less
patience than I would conclude that their system was hopelessly ruined.
However, I have
Just an important note for anybody ending up at this bug and wanting to
remove libc6-amd64. As long as you have root access to the system and
have not powered off yet, I believe you can fix this issue without
rescue CD/USB.
With root access (sudo does not work anymore, because the setguid fails)
y
Hi Cyril
On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
> the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…
I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generating
packages recently on IRC #d-releas
Hi kibi,
On 24-05-2021 06:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Nothing dramatic, we'll be more explicit next time and pick an option
> for real instead of considering both options and letting one pick a
> favorite. :)
Let's agree on that indeed. It's a shame that we get into these
annoyances, while all w
Hi all,
On 04-07-2021 00:42, Colin Watson wrote:
> Sorry for my delay - it took me a while to spot the problem. libc6's
> postinst does arrange to restart services where needed, but in this case
> it doesn't realize that you have the ssh service installed because you
> only have the openssh-serve
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:51:09 -0400 Andres Salomon
wrote:
> So this only affects users who do or do not have the ssh metapackage
> installed?
I'm pretty sure it effects both.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Source: glibc, openconnect
Control: found -1 glibc/2.31-16
Control: found -1 openconnect/8.10-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of glibc the autopk
Source: glibc, ruby-rugged
Control: found -1 glibc/2.31-16
Control: found -1 ruby-rugged/1.1.0+ds-4
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of glibc the au
Control: reassign -1 ruby-rugged 1.1.0+ds-4
Control: retitle -1 ruby-rugged autopkgtest regressed in Augustus 2021
Control: tag -1 - unreproducible
On 22-08-2021 00:32, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> With a recent upload of glibc the autopkgtest of ruby-rugged fails in
>> testing when that autopkgtest i
Control: reassign -1 src:glibc 2.31-16
Hi Aurelien,
On 23-08-2021 21:31, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Bug #992653 in glibc reported by you has been fixed in the
> Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
> message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
>
> https://sal
Source: binutils, glibc
Control: found -1 binutils/2.37.50.20220106-2
Control: found -1 glibc/2.33-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Control: affects -1 gcc-10 gcc-11
Dear maintainer(s),
Dear colleagues,
The Release Team would like to propose a bookworm freeze timeline. Don't
worry, the timeline is a plan, if serious (timing) issues come up we
will adapt. However, before making the plan public in a wider audience,
we'd like to know from you if you already foresee clashes in ti
Source: gcc-12, glibc
Control: found -1 gcc-12/12.1.0-5
Control: found -1 glibc/2.33-7
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bookworm
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of gcc-12 the autopkgtest of glibc fails in testing
on arm64 when t
Source: glibc
Version: 2.33-7
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: flaky
Dear maintainer(s),
I looked at the results of the autopkgtest of your package. I noticed
that it regularly fails on armel while testing if other packages can
migrate. A retry (or retry of retry) p
Hi Aurelien,
Thanks for your thorough testing.
First off, we have recently changed our setup for armel and armhf
testing. The real host is the same, but instead of one VM for armel
where we ran 10 debci workers in parallel, we now have smaller VM's with
only 4 parallel debci workers per VM. M
Source: sudo
Version: 1.9.10-3
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: gl...@packages.debian.org openl...@package.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: flaky
Control: affects -1 src:glibc slapd
Dear maintainer(s),
I looked at the results of the autopkgtest of your package because it
s
Hi,
On 01-12-2022 12:57, Paul Gevers wrote:
I looked at the results of the autopkgtest of your package because it
showed up in the glibc regressions. I noticed that it regularly fails on
s390x [1] for the first try to test glibc (same happened at least once
on i386 too). The retry one day
Hi Marc,
On 09-12-2022 19:34, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:02:45PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
And right after hitting the send button I realized that my reasoning is at
least partially flawed. The testbed will always update glibc, because the
testbed is build from testing, and
Source: gnustep-base
Version: 1.29.0-6
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: tzd...@packages.debian.org
Tags: sid trixie
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:tzdata
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of tzdata the autopkgtest of gnustep-base fails in
t
Source: python3.12
Version: 3.12.0~rc1-1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: tzd...@packages.debian.org
Tags: sid trixie
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:tzdata
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of tzdata the autopkgtest of python3.12 fails in
t
Source: python3.11
Version: 3.11.4-1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: tzd...@packages.debian.org
Tags: sid trixie
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:tzdata
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of tzdata the autopkgtest of python3.11 fails in
testi
Hi,
On 07-01-2024 18:21, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Timeout while building:
https://ci.debian.net/packages/g/glibc/unstable/arm64/41516611/
There are indeed many failures with cc1 getting killed, it seems that it
started around 2024-01-02. I haven't spotted any change to the toolchain
nor kernel ve
Hi,
On 08-01-2024 01:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I am still not sure why it got killed on arm64 and not on other debci
workers, there as still swap available. Actually looking at the munin
plot, it seems that the arm64 debci workers stopped using swap around
September 2023 contrary to the other ar
Hi all,
On 08-01-2024 19:50, Paul Gevers wrote:
Can you tell me how you saw that? I neither spotted that, nor is not
having swap a conscious act, so rather a mistake.
I just checked and it seems that on ci-worker-arm64-08 was not having
swap. We did have /swap created as our other workers
Hi,
On 08-01-2024 01:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I am still not sure why it got killed on arm64 and not on other debci
workers, there as still swap available. Actually looking at the munin
plot, it seems that the arm64 debci workers stopped using swap around
September 2023 contrary to the other a
On Mon, 18 May 2015 15:47:34 -0300 Antonio Terceiro
wrote:
> The glibc test runs times out at ci.debian.net after running for ~3h,
> apparently since they were introduced:
> https://ci.debian.net/packages/g/glibc/unstable/amd64/
Is there any hope to have this fixed?
> I am blacklisting glibc for
Hi Aurelien,
On 14-03-18 00:15, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2018-03-13 21:13, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 May 2015 15:47:34 -0300 Antonio Terceiro
>> wrote:
>>> The glibc test runs times out at ci.debian.net after running for ~3h,
>>> apparently sinc
Source: glibc, unrar-free
Version: glibc/2.27-4
Version: unrar-free/1:0.0.1+cvs20140707-4
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainers,
With a recent upload of glibc the autopkgtest of unrar-free started to
fail in unstable and testing. I have copied the error b
Hi gnupg2 maintainers, all,
I am investigating the autopkgtest regressions of glibc¹ (2 left after
some retries). I notice that gnupg2 fails (also in the retry) with the
error below. I don't fully understand yet, but I think this is due to
some requirement that only unstable can fulfill at the mom
Hi Ian,
Thanks for helping out.
On 09-07-18 15:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: gnupg2 autopkgtest uses multi-arch which seems
> fragile"):
>> I looked in:
>>
>> * debian/tests/control in the gnupg2 source tree.
>> One test, of gpgv-win32. Depends on gpgv-win32, gnupg2,
>
>
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 21:56:33 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I have no idea. On a fast 4-cores amd64 machine and for the 3 flavours
> > built on amd64, the glibc takes around 20 minutes to build and the
> > testsuite around 2h to run.
>
> This is still rather slow. I see native builds on relativ
Hi Florian,
On 29-07-18 13:26, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I'm not sure why it is necessary to build glibc three times (unless
> it's impossible to get multi-arch packages into the buildroot).
I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but currently having
multiple arches available in the autopkgte
Hi Florian,
On 30-07-18 23:14, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Gevers:
>> On 29-07-18 13:26, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why it is necessary to build glibc three times (unless
>>> it's impossible to get multi-arch packages into the buildroot).
>
Hi all,
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:48:44 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 22:17, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 21:56:33 +0200 Florian Weimer
> > wrote:
> > > > I have no idea. On a fast 4-cores amd64 machine and for the 3 flavours
> > &g
Dear glibc, abi-compliance-checker and Qt/KDE maintainers,
With recent upload of glibc and abi-compliance-checker the autopkgtest
of libkf5calendarsupport, kf5-kdepim-apps-libs and akonadi-calendar
started to fail when run in testing with either glibc or
abi-compliance-checker from unstable. These
Hi Samuel, all,
On 06-09-18 11:19, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> It'd be useful for the abi-compliance-checker test to actually output
> error messages,
>
> https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/k/kf5-kdepim-apps-libs/944759/log.gz
>
> it not very talkative :)
I agree, but I found tha
Hi
On 06-09-18 11:53, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le jeu. 06 sept. 2018 11:44:45 +0200, a ecrit:
>> Paul Gevers, le jeu. 06 sept. 2018 11:22:46 +0200, a ecrit:
>>> On 06-09-18 11:19, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>> It'd be useful for the abi-complia
Hi
On 06-09-18 16:39, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Does this mean that libc++-8-dev is breaking the ABI of the Qt/KDE
>>> packages? Luckily libc++-8-dev will not migrate to testing due to
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/714686 Does it need a "Breaks" then?
>>
>> Actually due to a bug in the migration p
Hi all,
On 09/06/18 21:13, Paul Gevers wrote:
> So it seems they are requested by something, and because the are not
> available in testing, apt-get is not limited by our pinning to take them
> from unstable. I believe it must be a "Provides" of some sort. What I
> want to
Dear all,
On 09-09-18 22:04, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 09/06/18 21:13, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> So it seems they are requested by something, and because the are not
>> available in testing, apt-get is not limited by our pinning to take them
>> from unstable. I believe it must be
Source: r-cran-rgenoud
Version: 5.8-2.0-2
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org, gl...@packages.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:glibc
Dear maintainers,
With a recent upload of glibc the autopkgtest of r-cran-rgenoud fails in
testing wh
Hi Maximiliano, others
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:24:15 -0300 Maximiliano Curia
wrote:
> About the kde frameworks uploads, they are handled in a bundle, and breaks
> and
> dependencies are added so they migrate to testing as needed, the same breaks
> and dependencies can cause temporary uninstallab
user debian...@lists.debian.org
usertags needs-update
thanks
Hi all,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:46:40 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
>
> Relevant part (hopefully):
> > debian/rules build
> > linux: 4.19.12-1 / 4.18.20
Dear all,
Regarding this PostgreSQL reindexing issue, is there anything we need to
mention in the release-notes? If this isn't fleshed out, but the most
likely answer is yes, than I'd appreciate it to receive a bug against
release-notes to remind us about it later on. Text can come later when
it i
Hi all,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:38:07 + Iain Lane
wrote:
> Package: keyboard-configuration
> Version: 1.188
> Severity: serious
> Tags: patch
[...]
> The generated names in keyboard-configuration.config are translated
> incorrectly:
>
> laney@raleigh> dpkg --ctrl-tarfile keyboard-configur
Dear Adrian,
On 07-05-2020 10:07, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This is a toolchain problem affecting many packages:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25051
Do you have any rough estimate how many? Is there any way to predict
which packages are effected, or to detect which packages are eff
Hi Adrian,
On 07-05-2020 12:16, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:28:33AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> If we can detect this failure
>> mode (and similar ones in the future) we can of course generate hints
>> based on this heuristics and have the failu
Hi Adrian,
On 10-05-2020 15:25, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I'm running another check on "cannot allocate memory in static TLS
> block" now, will take a while.
Also for this one, only vtkplotter showed up.
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
moval from testing before bullseye is frozen.
We are currently unaware of any new architectures likely to be ready in
time for inclusion in bullseye.
On behalf of the release team,
Paul Gevers
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Source: glibc, node-iconv
Control: found -1 glibc/2.31-5
Control: found -1 node-iconv/2.3.5-4
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bullseye
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of glibc the autopkgt
Source: glibc, libpod
Control: found -1 glibc/2.31-5
Control: found -1 libpod/2.0.6+dfsg1-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bullseye
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of glibc the autopkgtes
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:44:50 +0100 Alois Wohlschlager
wrote:
> > > > Another option might be to have the new libc6 Conflict with old
> > > > versions
> > > > of Essential:yes packages that need libcrypt1, forcing those
> > > > Essential:yes
> > > > packages to get upgraded first. A quick chec
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:41:23 +0100 Aurelien Jarno
wrote:
> > Selecting previously unselected package libcrypt1:amd64.
> > dpkg: considering deconfiguration of libc6:amd64, which would be broken by
> > installation of libcrypt1:amd64 ...
> > dpkg: yes, will deconfigure libc6:amd64 (broken by l
Source: glibc
Version: 2.31-9
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bullseye
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: flaky
Dear maintainer(s),
Your package has an autopkgtest, great. However, I looked into
the history of your autopkgtest [1] and I noticed it fail
Hi Aurelien,
On 21-03-2021 00:03, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Yes, could you please provide a full log? I am not able to reproduce the
> issue locally nor on barriere.d.o, so I have no idea what fails.
Of course when you try to, it doesn't work. I had 5 runs on arm64 which
all succeeded. I'm wonderin
Hi Ivo, Marco,
On 06-04-2021 22:10, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> I ran a number of (partial and full) upgrade tests, and they all seem to work
> fine. In all cases, libcrypt1 is installed before libc6, and there is no
> intermediate situations where libcrypt.so.1 is missing.
The patch looks sensible af
Hi Aurelien,
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:54:22 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,,
>
> On 21-03-2021 00:03, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Yes, could you please provide a full log? I am not able to reproduce the
> > issue locally nor on barriere.d.o, so I have no idea what fa
Hi Aurelien,
On 23-04-2021 14:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Nope, unfortunately it seems the mail didn't reach me or the mailing
> list, maybe it was too big?
It did reach the BTS. I guess size may have been a factor yes, the log
can be picked up in the BTS.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description:
Hi Aurelien,
On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
> able to reproduce the issue with a bullseye kernel, which defaults to
> kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1. It seems the autopkgtest runners
> still use a buster kern
Source: tzdata
Version: 2024a-4
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 2024b-3
Tags: sid trixie
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing
and unstable for more than 30 days as havi
Hi Santiago,
On 08-11-2024 02:50, Santiago Vila wrote:
So: Could some Release Manager evaluate if we really need Bug #1084190
at this point?
My hint for tzdata [1], which is in place since 2024-11-02, implicitly
defers this judgement call for now to the maintainers, which should be
the first
Hi Aurelien,
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 23:48:15 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
wrote:
A small update on this bug. Now that glibc 2.35-3 migrated to testing,
the only unsolved issue is that one:
On 2022-10-07 21:14, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 07-10-2022 20:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > >
https://c
64 matches
Mail list logo
