Today's commit should bring hurd-i386, hppa, s390, and the udebs to
life.
Outstanding known brokeness: arm (combreloc problems), ia64 (strncpy)
For ia64, I've gotten mixed messages as to whether the current fixes in
CVS are enough or not.
For arm, I need some direction as to the path to rightne
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to SON
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
Repository: glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to SONAME if i
libc-alpha,
The following changes adds a few defines so __USE_FILE_OFFSET64
works properly on hppa.
I fixed the changelog and the bug in the original patch.
Tested with samba + LFS support.
c.
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/bits/fcntl.h |6 ++
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/fcntl.c |
libc-aplha,
When checking for DWARF2 unwind info the link order for
hppa requires -lgcc_eh to be placed before -lgcc.
Change tested on i386 and nothing broke.
c.
---
2002-11-16 Carlos O'Donell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.in: Change "-lgcc -lgcc_eh" to "-lgcc_eh -lgcc" to
libc-alpha,
New ulps for hppa.
c.
--
2002-11-11 Randolf Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* sysdeps/hppa/fpu/libm-test-ulps: Regenerate new ulps for hppa.
--- glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/hppa/fpu/libm-test-ulps 1969-12-31 19:00:00.0 -0500
+++ glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/hppa/fpu/libm-test-ulps.new
libc-alpha,
"Fixed point math in rtld.c segfaults the loader because the ltp is not
yet setup at the point where we need to access it."
- Randolph Chung
I agree with Randolph (after having seen it under gdb), and here is the
patch.
c.
---
2002-11-11 Randolph Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
libc-alpha,
I've reworked the hppa pthreads patch to be as low impact as possible :)
Though some things need to be done, namely, hppa needs the lock variable
to be 16-byte aligned. This alignment requirement means all sorts of ugly
things, from wrappers to avoid non-constant named initializers, t
libc-alpha,
The following patch bumps up the minimum kernel required for hppa, and
thus forces the build environment to have the most recent unaligned
handler fixes.
Due to our old C++ binaries and libraries we will definately require
libc_cv_gcc_unwind_find_fde=yes in our configure.
c.
---
libc-alpha,
A machine context is really a signal context.
This has never worked correctly in hppa since the
kernel has always returned a sigcontext instead of
the struct defined in ucontext.h.
This definition change is made such that glibc
matches the ABI, rather than presenting an odd
view of
libc-alpha,
The following fixes dl-machine.h for hppa.
These fixes have been in debian-glibc for a long time
and have received heavy testing.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Round 2...
sysdeps/hppa/dl-machine.h | 193
+--
1 files changed, 97 insertio
debian-glibc,
I get problems install the glibc 2.3.1 package on HPPA becuase
the postinst script sets "check" to empty after the call to sed
fails. The call to sed fails because it's looking for files by
the name of "$check" ... this should be the other way around as
is indicated by the cvs diff
Today's commit should bring hurd-i386, hppa, s390, and the udebs to
life.
Outstanding known brokeness: arm (combreloc problems), ia64 (strncpy)
For ia64, I've gotten mixed messages as to whether the current fixes in
CVS are enough or not.
For arm, I need some direction as to the path to rightne
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to SON
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
Repository: glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to SONAME if i
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 22:15:42 MST 2002
Log Message:
glibc (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
* This is the Leonids release.
* Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Do not rename file to
debian-glibc,
I get problems install the glibc 2.3.1 package on HPPA becuase
the postinst script sets "check" to empty after the call to sed
fails. The call to sed fails because it's looking for files by
the name of "$check" ... this should be the other way around as
is indicated by the cvs diff
debian-glibc fell out of the CC loop :}
- Forwarded message from Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:48:05 -0500
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Glibc upload this
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165412: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#169176: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#162414: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#140054: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165892: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#140054: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#163260: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165959: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#166450: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#168890: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:49:15PM +0100, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> Thanks for the upload, but what is about bug report #167909?
Blech, I missed that one. For some reason I had in my notes that s390
was building fine so I didn't look for patches.
I have changed my notes appropriately. =)
debian-glibc fell out of the CC loop :}
- Forwarded message from Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: carlos@localhost
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:48:05 -0500
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Glibc upload this w
On Monday 18 November 2002 18:22, Archive Administrator wrote:
> glibc_2.3.1-4_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
> along with the files:
> glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
> glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
> libc6_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
> libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
> libc6-dev_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
> libc6-
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.3.1-4_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.1-4_all.deb
glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
libc6-db
glibc_2.3.1-4_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
libc6_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
libc6-dev_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:19:11 MST 2002
Log Message:
Missing conditional on s390x. The wrong way to do it, will be fixed when I
refactor the 64 bit stuff
Files:
changed:rules
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:18:06 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/hurd-fork-fix.dpath: New File.
Files:
changed:0list
added: hurd-fork-fix.dpatch
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:18:06 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/hurd-fork-fix.dpath: New File.
Files:
changed:changelog
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165412: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#169176: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#162414: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#140054: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165892: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:32:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#140054: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#163260: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165959: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#166450: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
jb,
> It got dealyed this weekend because I got sidetracked by looking at the
> apache bug, and also helping Carlos with the hppa stuff.
I'm seeing some unhappy behaviour during installs in all of my glibc
test chroots (unstable/testing/stable).
---
Setting up libc6 (2.3.1-4) ...
Checking for
Your message dated Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:00 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#168890: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:07:50AM -0600, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would like to do a glibc upload this weekend.
> What happened?
The debootstrap is building me a chroot right now.
It got dealyed this weekend because I got sidetracked by looking at the
apache bug, and also helping Carlos with
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:05:11PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> I would like to do a glibc upload this weekend.
What happened?
We seem to be having some serious issues keeping glibc in unstable
releasable -- it's spent all bar a couple of weeks since woody's release
making "testing" useless...
Ch
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:49:15PM +0100, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> Thanks for the upload, but what is about bug report #167909?
Blech, I missed that one. For some reason I had in my notes that s390
was building fine so I didn't look for patches.
I have changed my notes appropriately. =)
--
To U
On Monday 18 November 2002 18:22, Archive Administrator wrote:
> glibc_2.3.1-4_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
> along with the files:
> glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
> glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
> libc6_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
> libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
> libc6-dev_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
> libc6-
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.3.1-4_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.1-4_all.deb
glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
libc6-db
glibc_2.3.1-4_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.3.1-4.dsc
glibc_2.3.1-4.diff.gz
libc6_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc-udeb_2.3.1-4_i386.udeb
libc6-dev_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-dbg_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.1-4_i386.deb
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:19:11 MST 2002
Log Message:
Missing conditional on s390x. The wrong way to do it, will be fixed when I refactor
the 64 bit stuff
Files:
changed:rules
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:18:06 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/hurd-fork-fix.dpath: New File.
Files:
changed:0list
added: hurd-fork-fix.dpatch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:jbailey
time: Mon Nov 18 10:18:06 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/hurd-fork-fix.dpath: New File.
Files:
changed:changelog
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
jb,
> It got dealyed this weekend because I got sidetracked by looking at the
> apache bug, and also helping Carlos with the hppa stuff.
I'm seeing some unhappy behaviour during installs in all of my glibc
test chroots (unstable/testing/stable).
---
Setting up libc6 (2.3.1-4) ...
Checking for
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:07:50AM -0600, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would like to do a glibc upload this weekend.
> What happened?
The debootstrap is building me a chroot right now.
It got dealyed this weekend because I got sidetracked by looking at the
apache bug, and also helping Carlos with
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:05:11PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> I would like to do a glibc upload this weekend.
What happened?
We seem to be having some serious issues keeping glibc in unstable
releasable -- it's spent all bar a couple of weeks since woody's release
making "testing" useless...
Ch
Bonjour,
Dans le cadre de vos activités, vous avez peut-être besoin de services de
traduction. Société de traduction (Toutes langues, tous domaines), nous nous
permettons donc de vous poser deux questions :
1) Êtes-vous potentiellement intéressés ?
2) Quelle est la personne à contacter ?
Sincèr
Bonjour,
Dans le cadre de vos activités, vous avez peut-être besoin de services de
traduction. Société de traduction (Toutes langues, tous domaines), nous nous
permettons donc de vous poser deux questions :
1) Êtes-vous potentiellement intéressés ?
2) Quelle est la personne à contacter ?
Sincèr
66 matches
Mail list logo
