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 ?
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 12:32:59 -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 12:32:59 -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 12:33:00 -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
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 weekend
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.
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
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/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/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
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
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
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-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
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 ?
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...
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
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
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
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 10:19:11 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
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
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
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
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. =)
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
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#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#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 12:32:59 -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 12:32:59 -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 12:33:00 -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 12:33:00 -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
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 weekend
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.
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
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/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/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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
