> >> From what I understood, the current ld.so breakage is not worth a new
> >>upload in Ben Collins' opinion. And this is driving me crazy. This bug
> >>has been present for over a month now.
Which ld.so breakage (which bug number, ...)?
Michael
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:55:06AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Hi,
From what I understood, the current ld.so breakage is not worth a new
upload in Ben Collins' opinion. And this is driving me crazy. This bug
has been present for over a month now.
Would somebody c
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 09:35:31AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Does this mean potentially broken software like XFree86 doesn't have to care
> about this? We've had quite some discussion about a solution...
No! It needs to be fixed. The glibc change is not only a workaround
but a significant pe
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:55:06AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > From what I understood, the current ld.so breakage is not worth a new
> > upload in Ben Collins' opinion. And this is driving me crazy. This bug
> > has been present for over a month now.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:55:06AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From what I understood, the current ld.so breakage is not worth a new
> upload in Ben Collins' opinion. And this is driving me crazy. This bug
> has been present for over a month now.
>
> Would somebody care making a new
Hi,
From what I understood, the current ld.so breakage is not worth a new
upload in Ben Collins' opinion. And this is driving me crazy. This bug
has been present for over a month now.
Would somebody care making a new version of the libc6 with the patch here:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-
6 matches
Mail list logo
