Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:15:23 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in hanterm-xf 1:3.3.1p18-9.1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:13:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in dfm 0.99.7-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
On 2006-01-22 (sunday), at 23:38:21 Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Does memprof work with xterm? It is the only program I have tried so
> far that actually ran..
Hmm that's something new. It "works" with xterm, however there is no
information in memproof's main window.
At least it doesn't hnag-up. This s
Justin Pryzby wrote:
I can run `memprof -- xterm` and the xterm does load. However I can't
profile or do a leak check on it; it gives errors like:
** (memprof:23125): WARNING **: Can't open /proc/23132/mem
I don't get that, I just can't get any kind of result except for
xterm being slow.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 11:45:51PM -0500, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >Hey Jason,
> >
> >Can you confirm the ability to run "xterm" under memprof? I agree
> >that memprof seems to be totally busted, but it seems to at least be
> >capable of spawning an xterm, if nothing else.
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Hey Jason,
Can you confirm the ability to run "xterm" under memprof? I agree
that memprof seems to be totally busted, but it seems to at least be
capable of spawning an xterm, if nothing else. I just want to check
and see if we are seeing the thing. Another bug was submit
Does memprof work with xterm? It is the only program I have tried so
far that actually ran..
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:06:08AM +0100, Emilian Nowak wrote:
> On 2006-01-22 (sunday), at Justin Pryzby write:
> So there is nothing interesting here besides main function has argc=97, but I
> started
On 2006-01-22 (sunday), at Justin Pryzby write:
> > Oki - I will try rebuilding it and some debugging.
> Ok, need any help?
Hmm... How should I debug that. I stareded this non-stripped memproof then I
selected some program for memproofing. Before executing it I made gdb
--pid=`pidof memproof`
then
On 2006-01-22 (sunday), at 22:18:00 Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It appears that our memprof package has major issues. Could you try
> compiling it locally with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip, and running it
> under valgrind (oh the irony!) to try to get a backtrace of the
> problem at an early stage? I co
severity 349295 serious
severity 349453 serious
thanks
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:12:49AM +0100, Emil Nowak wrote:
> Package: memprof
> Version: 0.5.1-12
> Severity: important
>
> Everey time I try to run some application using memprof it hangs displaying
> ths error on console:
>
> *** glibc de
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 349295 serious
Bug#349295: memprof doesn't do anything?
Severity set to `serious'.
> severity 349453 serious
Bug#349453: memprof hangs just after executing profiled app
Severity set to `serious'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please con
Package: memprof
Version: 0.5.1-12
Severity: important
Everey time I try to run some application using memprof it hangs displaying
ths error on console:
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7cc8860 ***
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
Story Bernardo
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 342815 patch
Bug#342815: Xdialog: syntax error leads to infinite memory allocation loop
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrat
tags 342815 patch
thanks
The result of the ridiculous memory use is not a loop but a recursion,
which causes the stack to grow. This generally results in a SIGSEGV as
there is no other way to report stack exhaustion to the program.
If the label for a row is empty, the row is unselectable. If th
coco letters in her possession; and ultimately obtained from her the
asthma a quarter of an hour, grave affairs long since composed.
sarcastic consequences, that he became uncomfortable in his mind sometimes.
aisle those letters, and throw them in the fire. Give me Miss Spenlows
blizz
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:45:38 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#233464: fixed in yudit 2.7.8-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
libgnome-gnorba-perl |0.1.0-2 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386, i386,
ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the ta
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
xmcpustate | 3-13 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips,
mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (o
Accepted:
kdoc_2.0a54-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/k/kdoc/kdoc_2.0a54-3.diff.gz
kdoc_2.0a54-3.dsc
to pool/main/k/kdoc/kdoc_2.0a54-3.dsc
kdoc_2.0a54-3_all.deb
to pool/main/k/kdoc/kdoc_2.0a54-3_all.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
kdoc_2.0a54-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kdoc_2.0a54-3.dsc
kdoc_2.0a54-3.diff.gz
kdoc_2.0a54-3_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:00:52 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#349227: diff for 1:3.3.1p18-9.1 NMU
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
For : eric smith
We spoke yesterday and I'd like to go over everything now.
Please read the information below and well me if you have any questions.
b0kewr1te.com/v
We're accepting your application. Your credit has been accepted.
We need to confirm your information 1 more time. Just view the
Accepted:
libungif-bin_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/libu/libungif4/libungif-bin_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
libungif4-dev_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/libu/libungif4/libungif4-dev_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
libungif4_4.1.4-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/libu/libungif4/libungif4_4.1.4-2.diff.gz
libungif4_4.1.4-2.dsc
Accepted:
patch_2.5.9-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/p/patch/patch_2.5.9-3.diff.gz
patch_2.5.9-3.dsc
to pool/main/p/patch/patch_2.5.9-3.dsc
patch_2.5.9-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/p/patch/patch_2.5.9-3_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Thank you for your contribution to Debi
Accepted:
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.diff.gz
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.dsc
to pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.dsc
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4_all.deb
to pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera
Accepted:
pipenightdreams-data_0.10.0-11_all.deb
to pool/main/p/pipenightdreams/pipenightdreams-data_0.10.0-11_all.deb
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11.diff.gz
to pool/main/p/pipenightdreams/pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11.diff.gz
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11.dsc
to pool/main/p/pipenightdreams/pipenightdrea
Accepted:
patchutils_0.2.31-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/p/patchutils/patchutils_0.2.31-2.diff.gz
patchutils_0.2.31-2.dsc
to pool/main/p/patchutils/patchutils_0.2.31-2.dsc
patchutils_0.2.31-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/p/patchutils/patchutils_0.2.31-2_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.d
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 205672 http://sf.net/support/tracker.php?aid=789664
Bug#205672: psh: problem overriding alias containing '--'
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to
http://sf.net/support/tracker.php?aid=789664.
>
End of message, stopping proces
Accepted:
enscript_1.6.4-8.diff.gz
to pool/main/e/enscript/enscript_1.6.4-8.diff.gz
enscript_1.6.4-8.dsc
to pool/main/e/enscript/enscript_1.6.4-8.dsc
enscript_1.6.4-8_i386.deb
to pool/main/e/enscript/enscript_1.6.4-8_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Thank you fo
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.dsc
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4.diff.gz
ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-4_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
patchutils_0.2.31-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
patchutils_0.2.31-2.dsc
patchutils_0.2.31-2.diff.gz
patchutils_0.2.31-2_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11.dsc
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11.diff.gz
pipenightdreams-data_0.10.0-11_all.deb
pipenightdreams_0.10.0-11_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UN
patch_2.5.9-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
patch_2.5.9-3.dsc
patch_2.5.9-3.diff.gz
patch_2.5.9-3_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
libungif4_4.1.4-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
libungif4_4.1.4-2.dsc
libungif4_4.1.4-2.diff.gz
libungif4g_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
libungif4-dev_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
libungif-bin_4.1.4-2_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRI
enscript_1.6.4-8_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
enscript_1.6.4-8.dsc
enscript_1.6.4-8.diff.gz
enscript_1.6.4-8_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:57:48 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#306099: fixed in pppoeconf 1.7
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Accepted:
pppoeconf_1.9.dsc
to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.9.dsc
pppoeconf_1.9.tar.gz
to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.9.tar.gz
pppoeconf_1.9_all.deb
to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.9_all.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 341066 346385
Th
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:32:08 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#341066: fixed in pppoeconf 1.9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:32:08 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#346385: fixed in pppoeconf 1.9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
pppoeconf_1.9_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
pppoeconf_1.9.dsc
pppoeconf_1.9.tar.gz
pppoeconf_1.9_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
Your message dated Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:52:58 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323812: segfaults on amd64 in random mode
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
47 matches
Mail list logo
