Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.2.5-14
Severity: serious
There is no sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/mips/bits/msq.h, which means that
the default msq.h is used (sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/msq.h).
Unfortunately, the kernel structure does not match the default msq.h,
but instead matches the one used on 6
Zack,
Ulrich declines on this one for glibc 2.3. His reponse is...
---
Did anybody actually read the standard? The return after interrupt is a
'may' error. The implementation is correct.
- --
- ---.
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Fri Sep 6 16:58:52 MDT 2002
Log Message:
- debian/make-cvs-patch.sh: New file.
Files:
changed:changelog
added: make-cvs-patch.sh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-14
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
The Single Unix standard requires sem_wait() to be
interrupted by a signal delivered to the process - see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/sem_wait.html for
details. The glibc implementation of sem_wait(), however,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:25:18PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Well actually the correct thing to do is to go ahead and see what
> symbols you really need to be exporting from glibc via libgcc-compat
> for run time resolution. I'll see if I can puzzle out the form of
> such a script this week
Carlos,
Well actually the correct thing to do is to go ahead and
see what symbols you really need to be exporting from glibc
via libgcc-compat for run time resolution. I'll see if I
can puzzle out the form of such a script this weekend.
Jack
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Does glibc 2.2.93 build and pass make check under gcc-3.0/1 for all
> of our arches?
glibc 2.2.93 requires gcc-3.2 for all arch's.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
At last you cry out in anguish: "Why me?"
God answers: "Why not?"
- Sheldo
>
> Does glibc 2.2.93 build and pass make check under gcc-3.0/1 for all of
> our arches?
>
> I shall go and try compile 2.2.93 with gcc-3.0 and 3.1 on hppa. I know
> for sure that gcc-3.2 doesn't compile glibc 2.2.93 on hppa (unless I
> disable static, but we don't pass make check).
>
> c.
Fre
>
> > For those arches like i386, ia64 and ppc which
> > are known to be okay we can set the Build-Depends to gcc (>= 3.2).
>
> There is a configure time test for glibc that *Requires* gcc 3.2
> Compiling with less than that is not an option. That's why we can't
> produce ultrasparc binaries fo
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 159843 debconf
Bug#159843: locales: locale selection with readline frontend broken
Bug reassigned from package `locales' to `debconf'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:06:26PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Is it OK to change for debian/control as follows?
> > Package: libc0.3
> > Architecture: hurd-i386
> > + Depends: libdb1-compat
> hurd doesn't have libdb1-compat (yet?).
I can compile it up if we need to for consistancy,
* GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 22:26]:
> Is it OK to change for debian/control as follows?
>
> Package: libc0.3
> Architecture: hurd-i386
> + Depends: libdb1-compat
hurd doesn't have libdb1-compat (yet?).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
At Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:10:35 +0100,
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:02:04AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > I still confuse that 'libc6 depends libdb1-compat' does not affect
> > > any system breakage. Is apache's r
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:11:50AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> For those arches like i386, ia64 and ppc which
> are known to be okay we can set the Build-Depends to gcc (>= 3.2).
There is a configure time test for glibc that *Requires* gcc 3.2
Compiling with less than that is not an option. Th
While I have no objection to moving straight to glibc 2.3,
there is still the libgcc-compat issue to be resolved on all
of the arches. One approach we can take is to have an arch
specific Build-Depends on whether the gcc should be >= 3.1
or < 3.1. The reason is that these problematic libgcc sym
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:02:04AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > I still confuse that 'libc6 depends libdb1-compat' does not affect
> > any system breakage. Is apache's recompilation enough for this
> > issue, or not?
>
> Apache's d
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> I still confuse that 'libc6 depends libdb1-compat' does not affect
> any system breakage. Is apache's recompilation enough for this
> issue, or not?
Apache's dependancies now appear to be correct even if glibc does
nothing.
That m
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:14 +0100,
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:04:54AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > Hmm. 155904 isn't a valid bug anymore - Apache's been recompiled to
> > > cope with this. I'll close it
At Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:14 +0100,
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:04:54AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:54:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Does that mean that there isn't going to be an attempt to get
> > > current glibc 2.2. into testing, by fixi
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 06:51:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > You need to revert this. gcc-3.2 is not built with 64bit support
> > > yet.
> > glibc has a configure time check that won't permit it to be built
> > with less than gcc-3.2. Any idea how long until gcc's updated for
> > 64 bit s
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:04:54AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:54:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Does that mean that there isn't going to be an attempt to get
> > current glibc 2.2. into testing, by fixing #155904? Are
> > you just going straight for the pre-2.3 tra
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 155904
Bug#155904: apache: Apache depends on libdb.so.2 which libc6 no longer provides
Bug#155939: libc6: libc6 broke apache and all its modules
Bug closed, send any further explanations to "Daniel DiPaolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
End of message,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:54:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Does that mean that there isn't going to be an attempt to get
> current glibc 2.2. into testing, by fixing #155904? Are
> you just going straight for the pre-2.3 track?
Hmm. 155904 isn't a valid bug anymore - Apache's been recompil
Package: locales
Version: 2.2.5-11.1
Severity: normal
I imagine this is properly a debconf bug, but I have noticed it on
several systems and I cannot come up with a sane workaround, short of
changing how the configuration script works until debconf can be
fixed.
/* I have filed a corresponding b
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:17:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:35:04 -0500 (CDT),
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Refile this as a bug, and then I'll upload .8.
>
> That sounds nice!
>
> glibc 2.2.9x becomes installable on i386.
Does that mean that there isn't going to be an att
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
