Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Greg Norris
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Greg: Ease of adding, and potentional negative benefits would be very > nice to have, and if it's going to be in policy, for lintian a way to > check for it. Purpose: PT_GNU_STACK is used to mark binaries which require a

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Greg Norris
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > The recommended practice has always been not to submit bug reports for > things that would result in a lot of bugs being filed. That is massive > bug filing, so it should be discussed first. Just to clarify, I never intended (and sti

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:13:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > > Yes

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian > > warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Bill Allombert
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:13:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please writ

Re: Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Steve McIntyre
Santiago Vila wrote: >On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: >> >> As far as I can see, this is the _only_ bug report by Greg Norris on the >> PT_GNU_STACK issue! How can it be a mass bug filling ? > >Because many of the packages I maintain are also built on woody. Is there any good reason for

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian > > warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Bill Allombert
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian > warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before a lintian > warning exists is not polite. As far as

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > That's the correct explanation, yes. It has never been a bug to build > > a package using stable if the dependencies are compatible with the > > ones in testing. In this case, Pre

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-24 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I made a statistic on my machine: > > 1341 are '-' and 76 are '?' so less than 1% has the problem. > > > > More importantly, there are all binaries that have been build a long > > t

Re: Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-23 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Since diffutils was uploaded the 19/01/2005 I see no explanation why > > it has the problem unless the maintainer built it on top of woody. > > (The gcc changes is dated Sun, 9 Nov 2003). > > That's the correct explanation, yes. It has never been a bu

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-23 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I made a statistic on my machine: > 1341 are '-' and 76 are '?' so less than 1% has the problem. > > More importantly, there are all binaries that have been build a long > time ago, with the exception of diffutils and rcs binaries. > > Since diffuti

Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-23 Thread allomber
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 02:51:23PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Greg Norris wrote: > > > Package: diff > > Version: 2.8.1-9 > > Severity: minor > > > > The binaries appear to have been built without the PT_GNU_STACK header, > > which makes the 2.6.10 kernel enable read-impli

Processed: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header

2005-01-23 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 291631 debian-policy Bug#291631: cmp/diff/etc. lack PT_GNU_STACK header Warning: Unknown package 'policy' Bug reassigned from package `policy' to `debian-policy'. > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact