Hi!
On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 13:51:19 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I've got all the upstream changes now ready, except that there's still
> one test case failing, something wrong with the sigset_t type. I've run
> out of time trying to track this down, but I've pushed what I have on
> the pu/time64
Hi!
On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 23:00:00 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 02:35:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 - pending
>
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 19:36:09 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Source: libaio
> > > Version: 0.3.113-5
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 02:35:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Control: tags -1 - pending
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 19:36:09 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Source: libaio
> > Version: 0.3.113-5
> > Severity: serious
> > Tags: patch pending
> > Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade
> >
Control: tags -1 - pending
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 19:36:09 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Source: libaio
> Version: 0.3.113-5
> Severity: serious
> Tags: patch pending
> Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade
> User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: time-t
> Please find the patch
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 - pending
Bug #1062218 [src:libaio] libaio: NMU diff for 64-bit time_t transition
Removed tag(s) pending.
--
1062218: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1062218
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Source: libaio
Version: 0.3.113-5
Severity: serious
Tags: patch pending
Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: time-t
Dear maintainer,
As part of the 64-bit time_t transition required to support 32-bit
architectures in 2038 and beyond
6 matches
Mail list logo
