Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
Daniel Smolik a écrit : BERTRAND Joël napsal(a): Frans Pop a écrit : tags 334339 - wontfix thanks On Sunday 25 March 2007 20:02, BERTRAND Joël wrote: See bug #334339 (wontfix). IMO the "wontfix" tag is not correct. There should at least be an explanation by the maintainer _why_ he considers this an issue that is does not need to be fixed. Removing the tag as it was added without any justification. AFAICT this is a real issue that should be solved. I aggree. Bug was reported to mysql dev without success because dev have said that is a gcc-4.0 bug, not a mysql bug. Yes, but the gcc maintainers have said that the bug there has been fixed "long ago". Unfortunately they don't say in which version. "has been fixed" ? I have tried to build mysql with _all_ gcc release between 3.3 and 4.1 without any success. Where have you seen that this bug was fixed ? Maybe, but I think it is not very difficult to fix the configure.in script to avoid this bug. I have no idea about that and no idea how that would affect other architectures. Anyway, It is now probably too late to fix this for Etch. I have no idea too. In a first time, I suspected a 32 bits wide userland and a 64 bits kernel... Maybe a trouble with gcc include on sparc architectures. Regards, JKB Hi, could you tell me if this bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413471 reported by me is the same as bug you reported ? Yes, I think. But to be sure, you have to apply my workaround. Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
BERTRAND Joël napsal(a): Frans Pop a écrit : tags 334339 - wontfix thanks On Sunday 25 March 2007 20:02, BERTRAND Joël wrote: See bug #334339 (wontfix). IMO the "wontfix" tag is not correct. There should at least be an explanation by the maintainer _why_ he considers this an issue that is does not need to be fixed. Removing the tag as it was added without any justification. AFAICT this is a real issue that should be solved. I aggree. Bug was reported to mysql dev without success because dev have said that is a gcc-4.0 bug, not a mysql bug. Yes, but the gcc maintainers have said that the bug there has been fixed "long ago". Unfortunately they don't say in which version. "has been fixed" ? I have tried to build mysql with _all_ gcc release between 3.3 and 4.1 without any success. Where have you seen that this bug was fixed ? Maybe, but I think it is not very difficult to fix the configure.in script to avoid this bug. I have no idea about that and no idea how that would affect other architectures. Anyway, It is now probably too late to fix this for Etch. I have no idea too. In a first time, I suspected a 32 bits wide userland and a 64 bits kernel... Maybe a trouble with gcc include on sparc architectures. Regards, JKB Hi, could you tell me if this bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413471 reported by me is the same as bug you reported ? Thanks Dan
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
On Sunday 25 March 2007 20:58, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > "has been fixed" ? I have tried to build mysql with _all_ gcc release > between 3.3 and 4.1 without any success. Where have you seen that this > bug was fixed ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=334339;msg=66 pgp6Wohi1UrMF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
Frans Pop a écrit : tags 334339 - wontfix thanks On Sunday 25 March 2007 20:02, BERTRAND Joël wrote: See bug #334339 (wontfix). IMO the "wontfix" tag is not correct. There should at least be an explanation by the maintainer _why_ he considers this an issue that is does not need to be fixed. Removing the tag as it was added without any justification. AFAICT this is a real issue that should be solved. I aggree. Bug was reported to mysql dev without success because dev have said that is a gcc-4.0 bug, not a mysql bug. Yes, but the gcc maintainers have said that the bug there has been fixed "long ago". Unfortunately they don't say in which version. "has been fixed" ? I have tried to build mysql with _all_ gcc release between 3.3 and 4.1 without any success. Where have you seen that this bug was fixed ? Maybe, but I think it is not very difficult to fix the configure.in script to avoid this bug. I have no idea about that and no idea how that would affect other architectures. Anyway, It is now probably too late to fix this for Etch. I have no idea too. In a first time, I suspected a 32 bits wide userland and a 64 bits kernel... Maybe a trouble with gcc include on sparc architectures. Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#334339: Info received (Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1))
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If you wish to continue to submit further information on this problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Processed: Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 334339 - wontfix Bug#334339: mysql-client: Unable to connect a i386-mysql server from an UltraSPARC client (bus error) Tags were: wontfix upstream Tags removed: wontfix > 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]
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
tags 334339 - wontfix thanks On Sunday 25 March 2007 20:02, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > See bug #334339 (wontfix). IMO the "wontfix" tag is not correct. There should at least be an explanation by the maintainer _why_ he considers this an issue that is does not need to be fixed. Removing the tag as it was added without any justification. AFAICT this is a real issue that should be solved. > Bug was reported to mysql dev without > success because dev have said that is a gcc-4.0 bug, not a mysql bug. Yes, but the gcc maintainers have said that the bug there has been fixed "long ago". Unfortunately they don't say in which version. > Maybe, but I think it is not very difficult to fix the configure.in > script to avoid this bug. I have no idea about that and no idea how that would affect other architectures. Anyway, It is now probably too late to fix this for Etch. Cheers, FJP pgpGIxGTMDUDt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
Frans Pop a écrit : On Sunday 25 March 2007 19:18, BERTRAND Joël wrote: I use for a long time mysql server on several sparc64 workstations running debian testing. I have to rebuild mysql when I need to upgrade these systems. Endeed, due to a bug in gcc, I have to rebuild the debian package, and after configure stage, I stop the process, edit config.h to undef : This may sound weird, but: have you ever reported this as a bug against mysql or gcc? If you experience problems in Debian, the normal route is to file a bug report. In this case you could even justify making the bug report "release critical". I have fill a bug report a long time ago. Indicated solution comes from this bug report, but it is not fixed in new packages. If you have not, that would be a great pity as we are now very close to the release of Etch. You say that you have seen this "a long time", so there would have been time to fix it. I'm not sure if there is still time now... See bug #334339 (wontfix). Bug was reported to mysql dev without success because dev have said that is a gcc-4.0 bug, not a mysql bug. Maybe, but I think it is not very difficult to fix the configure.in script to avoid this bug. Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
On Sunday 25 March 2007 19:18, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > I use for a long time mysql server on several sparc64 workstations > running debian testing. I have to rebuild mysql when I need to upgrade > these systems. Endeed, due to a bug in gcc, I have to rebuild the > debian package, and after configure stage, I stop the process, edit > config.h to undef : This may sound weird, but: have you ever reported this as a bug against mysql or gcc? If you experience problems in Debian, the normal route is to file a bug report. In this case you could even justify making the bug report "release critical". If you have not, that would be a great pity as we are now very close to the release of Etch. You say that you have seen this "a long time", so there would have been time to fix it. I'm not sure if there is still time now... pgpdFGjVGlH5P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Major bug in mysql build (all versions since 4.1)
Hello, I use for a long time mysql server on several sparc64 workstations running debian testing. I have to rebuild mysql when I need to upgrade these systems. Endeed, due to a bug in gcc, I have to rebuild the debian package, and after configure stage, I stop the process, edit config.h to undef : /* Define to 1 if you have the `gethostbyaddr_r' function. */ #define HAVE_GETHOSTBYADDR_R 1 /* Define to 1 if you have the `gethostbyname_r' function. */ #undef HAVE_GETHOSTBYNAME_R and restart compilation. Without this hack, it is impossible to do queries from a sparc64 system to a i386 or amd64 due to a bus error. Can someone do anything to fix this bug in debian distributions ? Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sun]debian
No wonder if I can't install debian on my SUN, neither with a cdrom containing boot by the net, nore with a cdrom containing the full OS, apparently, I don't have an SCSI CDROM working fine !! I give them the n° 6 id, I setup a treminator; but when I boot the system, no device with ID 6 appears !!! I don't know well at- all the SUN OS 5.5.1, thus, if someone could give me the accurate procedure to setup the SUN to go to the net, through the gateway whose I know the IP address, I will appreciate. Thanks anyway, and have a nice sunday -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iptables -limit
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > > Jurij Smakov wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:03:29PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > > > Is iptables rate limiting still broken with sparc64? Certainly appears > > > to be with Sarge... has anybody ever found a working solution? > > > > Can you post a test case which would allow to reproduce the problem? > > Is there a bug filed for it? Unfortunately, the chances that it's > > going to be fixed for sarge (and for etch, for that matter), are > > pretty slim. > > According to > http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2003-November/ > 013031.html it's #218837 which I see is marked "wontfix". Definitely still > broken with a system installed from 3.1r3 CD (plus online upgrades), > canonical solution is to rebuild the package locally but I've seen people > querying the effectiveness of that. The iptables source includes a special hack so that rebuilding on the target system (i.e. 64-bit kernel, 32-bit userland) fixes the -m limit problem; as far as I can tell this works OK. As a secondary known issue the byte and packet counters might be still be broken but I don't see that as being so important. I appreciate that it's too late to fix anything in Etch and that it won't be backported to Sarge, but basically there need to be distinct debs: one for the 32-bit kernel and one for 64-bit. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
