Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 04:27, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > tag 362959 =
>> > tag 362959 + patch
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream
>> > takes pointe
Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 04:27, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > tag 362959 =
> > tag 362959 + patch
> > thanks
> >
> > I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream
> > takes pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on
> >
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:27:24AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Pointer should be put into intpointer_t if you must.
>
> It is intptr_t from stdint.h.
Right, sorry. too late at night.
>> Or
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:27:24AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pointer should be put into intpointer_t if you must.
It is intptr_t from stdint.h.
> Or better make a
> union of int and pointer if you have to mix the two.
This is undefi
Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tag 362959 =
> tag 362959 + patch
> thanks
>
> I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes
> pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things
> that are gints (32bits).
Pointer should be put into in
tag 362959 =
tag 362959 + patch
thanks
I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes
pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things
that are gints (32bits).
it had the nice effect to reset a loop counter to 0, hence the 100%
CPU loop.
atta
severity 340609 normal
thanks
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:19:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > # 340609
> > remove fai/2.10.1
> I'm not horribly impressed by the severity of this bug. Yeah, it would be
> nice to use a more appropriate FHS director
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > # 365680, security
> > remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6
> This bug is fixed by 0.5.4-6sarge1 which was uploaded to
> stable-security, and (acco
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060523 22:14]:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> > Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs:
>
> > Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> > > # 365680, security
> > > remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6
>
> > This bug is fi
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # 340609
> remove fai/2.10.1
I'm not horribly impressed by the severity of this bug. Yeah, it would be
nice to use a more appropriate FHS directory, but given that as near as I
can tell from the bug log, this FHS violation happens only during
instal
Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> # 365680, security
> remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6
This bug is fixed by 0.5.4-6sarge1 which was uploaded to
stable-security, and (according to Joey in that bug log) will propagate
to testing and unstable automati
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "Debatable" ones removed from list.
>
> # 364264
> remove directvnc/0.7.5-7.1
I sent Ola a patch for this one and he uploaded it on Sunday.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
"Debatable" ones removed from list.
# 366501 -- now 8d old instead of 24h, no maintainer comment
remove bootcd/2.53
# 362959
remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1
# 365794
remove cbrowser/0.8-1
# 365680, security
remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6
# 365181
remove s-http-server/20051218-1
# 340177, security
remove cscope/15.
severity 362959 grave
thanks
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:12:26AM +0200, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:48, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > # 362959
> > > remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1
> >
> > Seems to be pretty unreproducible across most architectures, may not even
> > be a bug anymore -
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:48, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > # 362959
> > remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1
>
> Seems to be pretty unreproducible across most architectures, may not even
> be a bug anymore -- deferred for the moment.
I've downgraded the severity to normal and marked as unreproducible, may be it
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:34:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> # 358833
> # Comment: "07-May-2006: dondelelcaro: This module will land in 2.6.17,
> # so will be removed once 2.6.17 is in unstable."
> remove bcm43xx/20060212-3
Not applicable to testing, which still has kernel 2.6.15; does ou
C coming soon
# 358833
# Comment: "07-May-2006: dondelelcaro: This module will land in 2.6.17,
# so will be removed once 2.6.17 is in unstable."
remove bcm43xx/20060212-3
# 365189
remove bidentd/1.0.10-7
# 366501
# This package also suffers from producing nearly content-free arch-all
# pack
17 matches
Mail list logo
