Bug#271298: glibc: Please use nptl instead of linuxthreads on amd64
On 04-Sep-14 11:18, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:21:39 +0200, > Using 2.4 or 2.6 kernel is user's decision. I guess amd64 2.4 kernel > is also used a lot, but I don't know the fact. Note that pthread is > used in various places, even users do not notice. > > If we drop amd64 2.4 kernel + pthread support, I think it's safe to > stop libc6 installation if amd64 2.4 kernel is used. libc6.preinst > does such kernel version sanity checking. Is it also acceptable for > you and users? Yes, this is acceptable. The current amd64 port does not support the 2.4 kernel at all. There is no kernel-image-2.4 package in the amd64 archives and I think there never will be one. The 2.4 kernel does not support the amd64 architecture very well and upstream does not do any kernel-2.4 development for amd64 or backports to 2.4 for amd64 as far as I know. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#271652: Installationproblem Debian Linux 3 for Sparc in package glibc/lib c6_2.2.5-11.5_sparc.deb
Package: libc6 Version: 2.2.5-11.5 Hello, I’m trying to install Debian Linux 3 for Sparc at a SUN Ultra 10. When the step “Install the Base System” is proceeding, I get the message “file:/instmnt/pool/main/g/glibc/libc6_2.2.5-11.5_sparc.deb was corrupt”. I downloaded the “debian-30r2-sparc-binary-1_NONUS.iso” two times, checked it with Md5Sum and everything was ok … What’s the problem, can you help me? Regards, Rainer Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Krück IT-Department Tradition Wertpapierhandelsbank AG Hochstraße 43 60313 Frankfurt/Main Tel: +49-69 20 50 0238 Fax: +49-69 20 50 0415 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tradition-de.com
Bug#264884: globfree() double-frees
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:55:38AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 11:33, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > Currently, there's no problem, so I would like to downgrade this bug > > to investigate more if there's no comments... > > I suppose this is between you and the release manager. I can tell you > without hesitation that sarge will not certify against LSB 2.0 without > this patch, and it may not certify against LSB 1.3 either. This > situation violates policy, and causes a number of headaches for a lot of > other people as well. > > OTOH, I am well aware of the constraints placed upon release managers, > so I will not object if releasing sarge with this bug is considered to > be the best thing for Debian. I would insist on its correction for the > first point release, though. At the moment, LSB 1.3 compatibility is release-critical, so if that certification would fail then the problem must be fixed. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#271650: FTBFS: illuminator/arm -- shlibs error
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 271650 important Bug#271650: FTBFS: illuminator/arm -- shlibs error Severity set to `important'. > reassign 271650 libc6 Bug#271650: FTBFS: illuminator/arm -- shlibs error Bug reassigned from package `illuminator' to `libc6'. > merge 271650 222536 Bug#222536: libc6: [ARM] ldd returns error on shlibs Bug#271650: FTBFS: illuminator/arm -- shlibs error Merged 222536 271650. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
