Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 05:43:21PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> Reading the Fedora messages was interesting. I went ahead and added the
>> patch. Looking at the book's change log, we've made 5 changes since
>> -rc1. The most significant were today with changes in glibc, bu
Armin K. wrote:
> Hey, thank you for adding the patch. I was unable to reproduce it with
> anything. It just happened twice with glibc 2.16.0 ... I used 2.14.1 for
> some months and it never happened there. I still don't know what causes
> it, but it's fine to have a fix!
From what I read, it is
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 05:43:21PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Reading the Fedora messages was interesting. I went ahead and added the
> patch. Looking at the book's change log, we've made 5 changes since
> -rc1. The most significant were today with changes in glibc, but
> standing back an
On 08/28/2012 12:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> The problem seems to be tricky to hit, I was going to say I didn't
>> think we should carry it. But fedora are using it:
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/glibc.git/plain/glibc-rh730856.patch?h=f18
>> (dates in the patch are fro
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:13:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Moving to -dev.
>>
>> I don't know what I did before, but it does apply for me now. The issue
>> here is whether we should add it to Chapter 6 right now. According the
>> the copyright notices, it hasn't changed s
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:13:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Moving to -dev.
>>
>>> Comment(by ken@…):
>>>
>>>Replying to [comment:5 bdubbs@…]:
>>>> Replying to [comment:4 ken@…]:
>>>> > The arch patch *does* apply to 2.16.0 for me.
>>
>> I don't know what I did b
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:13:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Moving to -dev.
>
> > Comment(by ken@…):
> >
> > Replying to [comment:5 bdubbs@…]:
> > > Replying to [comment:4 ken@…]:
> > > > The arch patch *does* apply to 2.16.0 for me.
>
> I don't know what I did before, but it does apply
Moving to -dev.
> Comment(by ken@…):
>
> Replying to [comment:5 bdubbs@…]:
> > Replying to [comment:4 ken@…]:
> > > The arch patch *does* apply to 2.16.0 for me.
I don't know what I did before, but it does apply for me now. The issue
here is whether we should add it to Chapter 6 right now
