On Sat, 7 May 2011 16:00:36 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> > > * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old programs keep working
> > > but new programs cannot be linked with the routines in libc anymore.
> > > Programs in need of RPC functionality must be linked against TI-RPC.
>
Kevin Kofler writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> but it hasn't done anything for the problem that packages that actually
>> need RPC functionality will now FTBFS for lack of a BuildRequires on
>> libtirpc, if not need actual source patches (maybe they were assuming
>> netdb.h would pull in rpc/netdb.h, f
Tom Lane wrote:
> but it hasn't done anything for the problem that packages that actually
> need RPC functionality will now FTBFS for lack of a BuildRequires on
> libtirpc, if not need actual source patches (maybe they were assuming
> netdb.h would pull in rpc/netdb.h, for instance). And if they a
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:52:35AM -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> > Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
> > and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
>
> Well, here's NEWS:
>
> > * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 23:27 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > In fact, you can see this has already happened:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-11
> >
> > has -6 karma at present. When it hit -3, it got unpushed.
>
> Yeah, but -1
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> In fact, you can see this has already happened:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-11
>
> has -6 karma at present. When it hit -3, it got unpushed.
Yeah, but -10 had the drop of RPC, so the damage is already done. -10
was broke (
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > sounds like a perfectly good reason to file negative karma on the
> > 'revised' update, then. Really - if you think the update is causing
> > significant problems, file negative karma, raise a stink about it. We
> > d
Adam Williamson writes:
> sounds like a perfectly good reason to file negative karma on the
> 'revised' update, then. Really - if you think the update is causing
> significant problems, file negative karma, raise a stink about it. We
> don't have to accept the update.
Done, but given that the gli
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
> >> asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
> >> Dave that th
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
>> asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
>> Dave that this looks like development material, not near-release bug
>> f
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits
> asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with
> Dave that this looks like development material, not near-release bug
> fixing. It's particularly bad
Josh Boyer writes:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> No the question is what do the glibc maintainers think they are doing
>> introducing changes like this in a branched release. This sort of stuff
>> should be in rawhide.
>>
>> These guys are in no way useful at helping c
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:52 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> > Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
>> > and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
>>
>> Well, here's NEWS:
>>
>>
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:52 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> > Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
> > and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
>
> Well, here's NEWS:
>
> > * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old progra
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> The question is: what is TI-RPC and where one finds it?
> Is it even packaged in Fedora?
It's the libtirpc package.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
> and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well, here's NEWS:
> * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old programs keep working
> but new programs cannot be linked with the routines i
Just a quick FYI:
If you haven't already gotten Fedora 15's latest glibc-headers package,
you may want to wait for 2.13.90-11. Here's why:
glibc-headers-2.13.90-10.x86_64 no longer includes any of
the /usr/include/rpc/*.h files.
Contrast with glibc-headers-2.13.90-9.x86_64, where there are 18:
17 matches
Mail list logo
