tags 288710 confirmed fixed-upstream
thanks
At Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:48:16 +1000,
Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Maybe should this bug be untagged "upstream" then ?
>
> Since its working on other versions of glibc (ie SLES9), odds are
> its an upstream bug anyway (maybe not, but probably). At this
> stage
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:32:49AM +0200, Xavier Hienne wrote:
> Nathan Scott a écrit :
> > Let's reassign this bug to glibc, and ask those folks to take
> > a look at the problem.
>
> Maybe should this bug be untagged "upstream" then ?
Since its working on other versions of glibc (ie SLES9), odd
Nathan Scott a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Xavier Hienne wrote:
Hi,
I too am encountering the very same bug on a 1900+ entry /home
directory. The bug is easily reproducible :
Yep, just tried it and it is indeed easy to hit with that test
An even easier way to reproduce it co
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Xavier Hienne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I too am encountering the very same bug on a 1900+ entry /home
> directory. The bug is easily reproducible :
Yep, just tried it and it is indeed easy to hit with that test
case, thanks. I've also tried this on a SLES9 mach
Hi,
I too am encountering the very same bug on a 1900+ entry /home
directory. The bug is easily reproducible :
$ mkdir /tmp/dir
$ cd /tmp/dir
$ for ((i=0; i<2000; i++)); do mkdir $i; done
$ getfacl *
[...]
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
getfacl: Too many open files
getfacl: Too many open files
g
Hello Nathan,
--Am 10. Januar 2005 09:35:54 +1100 schrieb Nathan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Dirk,
I sent this onto the maintainer, he's asked a couple of questions:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:18:35PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Thursday 06 January 2005 04:43, Nathan Scott wrote:
> FYI -
6 matches
Mail list logo
