Bug#537441: Hey I thought this bug were closed
Package: reiserfsprogs Severity: normal AFAIK the bug was due to optimized libc6 library that is in /usr/lib okay reiserfsprogs should not get out of the busybox but libc6 should not also. If nobody but me did experiment the bug I think it can be closed or else be affected to libc6: What make me think that i686 libc6 library is guilty : I ran debug build with /usr that was mounted and I could not reproduce the segfault. Optimized (i686) libc6 is on /usr/lib instead of /lib. That is not a proof, of course... -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-trunk-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: lang=fr...@euro, lc_ctype=fr...@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages reiserfsprogs depends on: ii libc6 2.10.2-2 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libuuid1 2.16.2-0 Universally Unique ID library reiserfsprogs recommends no packages. reiserfsprogs suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#537441: Hey I thought this bug were closed
Am Dienstag, den 29.12.2009, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Yves Lambert: > Package: reiserfsprogs > Severity: normal > > AFAIK the bug was due to optimized libc6 library that is in /usr/lib > okay reiserfsprogs should not get out of the busybox but libc6 should > not also. > If nobody but me did experiment the bug I think it can be closed or > else be affected to libc6: > What make me think that i686 libc6 library is guilty : I ran debug > build with /usr that was mounted and I could not reproduce the > segfault. Optimized (i686) libc6 is on /usr/lib instead of /lib. That > is not a proof, of course... > Ok thanks for your mail. But it still would be helpful to know where it actually segfaults. It wouldn't be a problem to reopen the bug and reassign to libc6 for me, but I can imagine its maintainers just ask you the same or directly close it or reassign back. Or maybe it has been fixed in the meanwhile with 2.10 Your initial report has libc6 2.9-20 whereas now you seem to have libc6 2.10.2-2. -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer and GNU GRUB developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#537441: Hey I thought this bug were closed
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 03:18:02PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote: > > Ok thanks for your mail. De rien (in french) de nada in spanish, I don't know how to say it in english :) > But it still would be helpful to know where it actually segfaults. I'd have to reboot without unmounting the fs several time. Ouch :) > It wouldn't be a problem to reopen the bug and reassign to libc6 for me, > but I can imagine its maintainers just ask you the same or directly > close it or reassign back. Yes of course. But... > Or maybe it has been fixed in the meanwhile with 2.10 > Your initial report has libc6 2.9-20 whereas now you seem to have libc6 > 2.10.2-2. ...but I've just been verifying it: there is no (no more) files shipped in in /usr/lib by libc6-i686 (2.10.2-2) and everything is happily put in /lib. 2.9-20 was afair an experimental build. This is the same version in testing and unstable and 2.9 is no more present in any debian. So there is no more this problem in libc6. The only reason for me that bug should be reopened would be that the bug occurs again that would innocent the obsolete build of lbc6-i686. As a reporter, my point is that this bug can be closed for now. -- All truth passes through three stages : First, it is ridiculed Second, it is violently opposed Third, it is accepted as being self-evident Schopenhauer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
