Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-11-04 Thread Adam Jackson
On 10/26/11 12:32 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: >> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/682 > > I've made another attempt to reach out the the glibc maintainer > directly again this morning to hopefully answer the questions in that > ti

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Jared K. Smith
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/682 I've made another attempt to reach out the the glibc maintainer directly again this morning to hopefully answer the questions in that ticket as soon as possible, and remind him of the seriousne

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:30:21AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 10:48 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: > > On 10/26/2011 10:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > I forgot to add that it's probably a good idea to recompile any > > > package that was compiled against th

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Tom Lane
Matthias Clasen writes: > On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 16:12 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:06:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:32:2: error: #error "Only can >>> be included directly." >> You are confusing glibc with glib here, the above v

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 16:12 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:06:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:32:2: error: #error "Only can > > be included directly." > > > > or close variants of that. I assume this is another manifestation of > >

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:06:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:32:2: error: #error "Only can > be included directly." > > or close variants of that. I assume this is another manifestation of > the same bug being discussed here ... or have the glibc guys managed

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes: > I forgot to add that it's probably a good idea to recompile any > package that was compiled against the -13 glibc package. BTW, if this is the case, why is 2.14.90-13 still in rawhide? Shouldn't we assume that every build done recently in rawhide is tainted? I've s

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 10:48 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: > On 10/26/2011 10:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > I forgot to add that it's probably a good idea to recompile any > > package that was compiled against the -13 glibc package. > > > > Strictly speaking, any package that uses a func

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Farkas Levente
On 10/26/2011 10:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I forgot to add that it's probably a good idea to recompile any > package that was compiled against the -13 glibc package. > > Strictly speaking, any package that uses a function that is defined > with __THROW or __NTH in the glibc header file

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
I forgot to add that it's probably a good idea to recompile any package that was compiled against the -13 glibc package. Strictly speaking, any package that uses a function that is defined with __THROW or __NTH in the glibc header files, but it's probably easier to compile every package. Is ther

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-25 Thread Peter Robinson
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> It's rather too complex to explain the change here, so I suggest >> you go and read these first: >> >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184205 >> http:

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-25 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:17:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It's rather too complex to explain the change here, so I suggest > > you go and read these first: > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/18

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It's rather too complex to explain the change here, so I suggest > you go and read these first: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184205 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184209 > h

Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-25 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
It's rather too complex to explain the change here, so I suggest you go and read these first: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184205 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184209 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747377#c22 https://bugzilla.re