At Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:03:26 -0800,
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fixed
From: Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:35:27 +0100
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1.14i-10.1
Thanks for your help! I'll check the patch.
libsmbios-dev does not provide libsmbios.so, making it impossible to link
against libsmbios.
libsmbios1 has libsmbios.so - or do I misunderstand your bug report?
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I saw the following from
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=nobug=391828
I'm just commiting a fix for this in my archive. I'll try to make a
release with this fix and a few others shortly.
Do you have any plans to upload a newer version of the package?
Now the bug is
xipmsg-0.8088.nmu/debian/control
--- xipmsg-0.8088/debian/control 2006-05-21 00:34:55.0 -0500
+++ xipmsg-0.8088.nmu/debian/control 2006-05-21 01:30:56.0 -0500
@@ -2,11 +2,12 @@
Section: x11
Priority: optional
Maintainer: GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Build-Depends
At Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:27:15 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
On the latest i386 Sid, gcc-4.0 does not build from source, on my machine,
and on a buildd (see the logs). With dash as sh, I get:
this is known, we're waiting on proper 64bit support from glibc. I'd
like to downgrade this one until
severity 328795 normal
thanks
[1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than
three years.
[2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**)
[3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you
might be MIA
[4] (if we
At Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:16:14 -0400,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
#317082 is moreinfo. Has a decision been made on how to fix this?
If not, frankly it should be downgraded to important, because it only
hurts biarch -- meaning it isn't actually a blocker for any single
subarchitecture -- and that's
At Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:38:15 -0400,
Rob Warren wrote:
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22
Keeping up with Stable the new release for libc6 is broken. dpkg dies
on the upgrade.
Did you try to upgrade from woody to sarge? Or from sarge to the
current sid? Please imagine 2.3.2.ds1-22 is broken - many arm
severity 324795 normal
tags 324795 moreinfo
thanks
At Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:11:30 -0400,
Rob Warren wrote:
I was upgrading from woody to sarge when apt-get choked on upgrading
libc6 from 2.2.5-11.8 to 2.3.2.ds1-22 with a message along the lines of
'can't seek in file xx'. dmesg would
At Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:27:43 -0700,
Steve Langasek wrote:
- cmpult Y, X, RV
+ cmpule Y, X, RV
excb
mt_fpcr $f3
ldt $f0, 0(sp)
but I don't have time for testing.
Thanks, after looking at the diff between divq.S and divqu.S and doing a
At Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:55:42 -0700,
Blars Blarson wrote:
glbic failed to build on a sparc buildd. It is currently building on
my sparc pbuilder, I'll report when the build finishes.
I changed it, -5 should fix this problem.
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:05:42 +0200,
Andreas Jochens wrote:
I guess you will generally have many more issues than this one when you
try to build 64-bit packages on a 32-bit buildd (e.g. compiling and
running 64-bit programs from configure scripts, running 'make check' or
'make test' targets,
At Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:24:14 +0200,
Andreas Jochens wrote:
There is already an inofficial buildd for the ppc64 architecture
running for 'unstable'. The respective ppc64 package archive is located at
deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main
and almost 95% of all source
At Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:56:19 +0200,
Andreas Barth wrote:
during building openmotif on sparc, this error happened:
gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-unused -Wno-comment -o .libs/periodic periodic.o
../../../lib/Xm/.libs/libXm.so -L/usr/X11R6/lib
../../../lib/Mrm/.libs/libMrm.so
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:00:23 +0100,
Scott James Remnant wrote:
I don't think this is just a dpkg-dev bug, these bi-arch systems need
to provide ldd or an equivalent that can read either form of shared
library that it would support.
objdump isn't a solution either, while it sometimes can read
At Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:50:25 +0200,
Adrian Bunk wrote:
After upgrading from the sarge libc6, sshd on my computer no longer
accepted connections.
Restarting sshd fixed the problem.
It seems the restart services question in the postinst should be
asked for upgrades from 2.3.5 .
I've set
At Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:02:46 -0400,
Josh Metzler wrote:
As far as I understand, #318979 caused xorg-x11 to FTBFS on sparc because it
included asm-sparc/fbio.h which used __user but failed to include
linux/compiler.h where __user was defined. This was apparently fixed in
At Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:24:19 +0200,
Adeodato Simó wrote:
This bug also affects xorg-x11, which FTBFS with current l-k-h as some input
drivers #include linux/joystick.h
Hello,
Please consider prioritizing this bug, since we can't get a first
build of xorg-x11 on SPARC until it gets
At Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:38:17 +0200,
Adeodato Simó wrote:
Before applying a patch, I would like to hear why this bug affects
only sparc?
No, it's not sparc-specific. What I meant is that, from a release
management point of view, it is preventing xorg-x11 from being a
candidate for
tags 318429 +fixed-upstream
thanks
At Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:06:00 +0200,
Daniel Kobras wrote:
Upstream has fixed the compile-time breakage in sys/ucontext.h with g++
4.0 in ia64 in 2.3.4, so the 2.3.5 packages in experimental are not
affected. The attached patch should do the trick for
Jul 2005 15:26:58 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:44:11 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
GOTO Masanori writes:
At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:09:59 -0700,
Ryan Murray wrote:
libc6-s390x is missing a depends on lib64gcc1 that causes gcc to fail
to link
when -m64 is used
At Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:51:06 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
--- /usr/include/linux/capi.h~ 2004-10-31 20:55:51.0 +0100
+++ /usr/include/linux/capi.h 2005-06-17 21:48:29.0 +0200
@@ -75,7 +77,7 @@
typedef struct capi_manufacturer_cmd {
unsigned long cmd;
-
At Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:55:30 +0200,
Adeodato Simó wrote:
on SPARC, the following change was made to the files
/usr/include/asm-sparc{,64}/fbio.h between linux-kernel-headers
2.5.999-test7-bk-17 and 2.6.12.0-1:
struct fbcmap {
int index; /* first element
tags 318956 fixed-in-experimental
thanks
At Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:32:10 +0200,
Frederik Schueler wrote:
the current libc6 version in unstable is causing build failures of
packages wich generate statically linked code. The version in
experimental seems to fix this, at least for zsh, sash and newt
tags 318959 unreproducible, moreinfo
thanks
At Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:16:32 +0100,
Paul Brossier wrote:
for info, i have been testing both testcases on powerpc and could not
reproduce
the issue.
Me too. I don't know what the actual problem is - it may be hardware
dependent problem, or simply
tags 318429 fixed-upstream
thanks
At Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:03:57 +,
Eduard Bloch wrote:
ucontext.h has a faulty struct definition on ia64, see
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=icewmver=1.2.21%2B1.2.22pre2-1arch=ia64stamp=1121106846file=logas=raw
for details.
Error message:
At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:44:11 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
GOTO Masanori writes:
At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:09:59 -0700,
Ryan Murray wrote:
libc6-s390x is missing a depends on lib64gcc1 that causes gcc to fail to
link
when -m64 is used on an s390 system.
I'm filling the bug here
At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:33:57 +0930,
Arthur Marsh wrote:
Hi, I found that by replacing all occurences of DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM with
DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS in debian/rules ie:
DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_OS)
and
-include
At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:09:59 -0700,
Ryan Murray wrote:
libc6-s390x is missing a depends on lib64gcc1 that causes gcc to fail to link
when -m64 is used on an s390 system.
I'm filling the bug here rather than on the gcc-VERSION packages because the
sparc64 packages have the dependency in
At Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:38 +0200,
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Christian Hammers wrote:
For what it's worth, I also tried Miguel's ctime-hang.c on both a Sarge i386
and a Sid amd64 machine with 2.6 kernels and can reproduce the hang in
10 of 10 attempts.
I also re-ran the ctime-hang.c
reassign 301455 initrd-tools
severity 303281 important
merge 301455 303281
thanks
At Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:13:54 +0300,
George Cristian Birzan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:44:12PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
sed -n 's/.*\(=\)\?[[:blank:]]\+\(\/[^[:blank:]]*\).*/\2/p'
Something like
severity 306546 important
tags 306546 moreinfo unreproducible
thanks
At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:25:12 +0200,
Marek Szuba wrote:
My affected box is an AMD Sempron machine with a 2.6 kernel built
for K8 architecture. Having upgraded nscd to 2.3.2.ds1-20 (via
apt-get dist-upgrade) earlier this week I
At Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:13:32 +0200,
Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:37:53PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
In the recent up coming glibc-2.3.2.ds1-21, two system call,
sched_setaffinity and sched_getaffinity, are changed. New interface
needs three argument (OTOH, glibc 2.3.2
/changelog 2005-04-16 22:12:42.0
+0900
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+schedutils (1.3.4-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Update for the recent glibc interface change.
+
+ -- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:12:09 +0900
+
schedutils (1.3.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:13:49 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:46:24AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:31:56 +0200,
Bastian Blank wrote:
Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of
problems may the different glibc
I forgot to say that if we use schedutils compiled with glibc
2.3.2.ds1-21 (using new sched_{get,set}affinity) + glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21
runtime libraries:
bash-2.05b# ./taskset
taskset version 1.3.4
...
But if we use schedutils compiled with glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21 + glibc
At Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:35:29 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:30:08AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
OK, I put the patch. Currently I found the problem about schedutils.
Once schedutils `taskset' command uses new sched_getaffinity and
sched_setaffinity interface
At Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:19:06 -0800,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:44:10PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
The attached patch updates sched_[gs]etaffinity to the new interface
from glibc 2.3.4.
I have difficulties with this patch. This patch adds new interface
glibc 2.3.4
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:11:07 -0700,
Steve Langasek wrote:
Investigation in the lintian lab on gluck.d.o shows that there are at
least
two packages, valgrind and schedutils, which would need to be updated to
use
the new API once this change is uploaded. Unfortunately, the data in
At Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:46:51 -0700,
David Mosberger wrote:
GOTO I fear to change this interface until sarge release because there
GOTO might be another packages that uses sched_setaffinity.
Well, yes, schedutils probably would need updating. I don't know of
anything else, though. We
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:31:56 +0200,
Bastian Blank wrote:
Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of
problems may the different glibc packages. But I currently see nothing
which may really cause problems here as ld.so is not effected. (See this
as a small part of the
At Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:29:49 -0600,
dann frazier wrote:
Your debs worked for me - evolution now starts w/o
LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.18. Thanks.
That's great. I'll put the patch.
BTW, for debian glibc people,
I didn't enable the pthread size fix for alpha, i386, ppc, sparc and
s390 (+sh). If
At Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:50:19 +0100,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Can your problem be fixed to define O_NOATIME in lvm2 or
linux-kernel-headers package?
Regards,
-- gotom
I assigned the bug is to both. The headers because they have the bug and
lvm because it can work around it (thereby
At Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:48:00 +0100,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:40:33 +0100,
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
when one tries to run pvmove or lvsnapshot on / the lvm will deadlock
itself due to atime updates on /dev/ being blocked
At Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:17:44 -0800,
David Mosberger wrote:
While there hasn't been any discussion for glibc bugzilla report #685
[1], private communication with one of the glibc maintainers indicates
that this issue is not considered to be a glibc bug because,
officially, glibc supports only
Sending this bug without any investigate is not appropriate action.
^^^ Reassigning
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
severity 288948 important
merge 180065 288948
thanks
At Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:19:58 +0200,
Ely Levy wrote:
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-13hujics
What is this version? We don't have it.
Justification: breaks the whole system
I don't think so. Almost all user don't hit this problem. I've
merged this
47 matches
Mail list logo
