On 08/16/2010 01:23 AM, Marcos Talau wrote:
> Upstream said:
>> The offending piece of code was identified. However the code, due
>> to its non-POSIX implementation, is non-functional under current
>> versions of GLIBC, regardless the bug. Squid has a similar kludge
>> but, apparently, they managed
Upstream said:
> The offending piece of code was identified. However the code, due to its
> non-POSIX implementation, is non-functional under current versions of GLIBC,
> regardless the bug.
> Squid has a similar kludge but, apparently, they managed to keep it working.
>
> A portable solution is
* Marcos Talau [2010-08-14 15:27]:
> The BUG related on armel was already correct solved [1].
I don't think disabling some option is the best fix. I searched
around and found http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36466
which explains why the code in ziproxy is buggy. If you forward this
l
On 08/14/2010 08:27 PM, Marcos Talau wrote:
> Mehdi Dogguy writes:
>
>>
>> I've prepared an NMU for ziproxy (versioned as 3.1.1-1.1) and
>> uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I should
>> delay it longer.
>>
>
> Thanks for your work.
>
> The BUG related on armel was alre
Mehdi Dogguy writes:
>
> I've prepared an NMU for ziproxy (versioned as 3.1.1-1.1) and
> uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
> should delay it longer.
>
Thanks for your work.
The BUG related on armel was already correct solved [1].
The version 3.1.3-1 also closes others
tags 591417 + patch
tags 591417 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for ziproxy (versioned as 3.1.1-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Regards.
--
Mehdi Dogguy
diff -Nru ziproxy-3.1.1/debian/changelog ziproxy-3.1.1/deb
6 matches
Mail list logo
