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
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
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
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
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
> >
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
"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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo