At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:42:21 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, /usr/include/error.h is now documented in the info pages, under the
> "Error Messages" node. This is on glibc-doc 2.3.1-8. And according to
> the info page, these functions are GNU extensions.
That's right.
> So I pro
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:21:21 +0200,
Andres Soolo wrote:
> 'Twas Mon, 2002-Dec-30. Quoth H. S. Teoh,
> > Hi, /usr/include/elf.h in libc6-dev (2.3.1-8) seems to have already fixed
> > this problem:
>
> Yes, it is fixed there.
>
> > Unless this file contains architecture-dependent contents, I propo
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:56:49 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, this bug has already been fixed in glibc-doc 2.3.1-8. The relevent
> section from the info pages read:
>
> [snip]
> - Macro: int O_READ
> Open the file for reading. Same as `O_RDONLY'; only defined on
> GNU
Your message dated Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:10:05 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#95332: Already documented
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 resp
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:gotom
time: Tue Dec 31 02:34:27 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/document-fix.dpatch: Applied patches sent by
H. S. Teoh and GOTO Masanori. (Closes: #117680, #16)
Files:
changed:changelog
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:gotom
time: Tue Dec 31 02:34:28 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/document-fix.dpatch: Applied patches sent by
H. S. Teoh and GOTO Masanori. (Closes: #117680, #16)
Files:
changed:0list
added: document-fi
Your message dated Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:20:11 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#143531: Already fixed
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 responsi
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:21:26 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, does the attached patch qualify as a fix for this bug? :-) Personally
> I don't see a need for ispell'ing C header files. (Doing an ispell on C
> *strings* in a file might be a different story, because users may actual
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 06:36:53PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:21:26 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > So I propose just applying the attached patch and closing this bug.
> > Thanks!
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> I applied it into debian-glibc cvs
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:16:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> BTW, from manpages umount(2):
>
> HISTORY
>The original umount function was called as umount(device) and would
>return ENOTBLK w
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 12:20:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:01:10 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > At any rate, I tried this with xterm, and got:
> > xterm: unable to access pty device: Permission denied
> >
> > I'm not sure if Branden worke
Actually, the libc6 upgrade breaks ssh-krb5 with exactly the same
log. Restarting ssh-krb5 fixes it, but that doesn't get done
automatically; perhaps this libc needs a resurrection of the "some
services need restarting" postinst...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
Bug#174540: libc6-2.3.1-{7,8) breaks apt-get (and more) on mips
Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2'.
> retitle 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2-15 breaks apt (and more) on mips
Bug#174540
reassign 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
retitle 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2-15 breaks apt (and more) on mips
severity 174540 grave
done
Since I noticed this problem after an upgrade from libc6-2.3.1-5
to libc6-2.3.1-8, initially reported the bug against libc6.
I'm in doubt which of both package
At Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:42:27 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 12:20:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:01:10 -0500,
> > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > At any rate, I tried this with xterm, and got:
> > > xterm: u
Your message dated Wed, 01 Jan 2003 13:42:31 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#121899: No wonder it segfaults
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
At Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:10:56 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:16:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
> > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > BTW, from manpages umount(2):
> >
> > HISTORY
> >The or
At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:46:45 -0800,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> We've been waiting based on Neuro's advice that sometimes Arm bugs are
> difficult to test for. The buildd is broken in that it appears to
> select the wrong header. Because all I have is a remote account on an
> Arm box, I can't test X - w
Title: «õ ¤« »P ¬D ¤ô
¦³¤GÓ©M©|¦í¦b¹j¾À¡A©Ò¿×¹j¾À¬O¹j¾À¨º®y¤s¡A¥L̤À§O¦b¬Û¾Fªº¤G®y¤s¤Wªº¼q¸Ì¡A
[EMAIL PROTECTED]|¨C¤Ñ³£·|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
³o®y¤sªº©M©|¨S¦³¤U¤s¬D¤ô¡A¥kÃ䨺®y¤sªº©M©|¤ß·Q¡G¡u¥L¤j·§ºÎ¹LÀY¤F
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:42:21 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, /usr/include/error.h is now documented in the info pages, under the
> "Error Messages" node. This is on glibc-doc 2.3.1-8. And according to
> the info page, these functions are GNU extensions.
That's right.
> So I pro
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:21:21 +0200,
Andres Soolo wrote:
> 'Twas Mon, 2002-Dec-30. Quoth H. S. Teoh,
> > Hi, /usr/include/elf.h in libc6-dev (2.3.1-8) seems to have already fixed
> > this problem:
>
> Yes, it is fixed there.
>
> > Unless this file contains architecture-dependent contents, I propo
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:56:49 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, this bug has already been fixed in glibc-doc 2.3.1-8. The relevent
> section from the info pages read:
>
> [snip]
> - Macro: int O_READ
> Open the file for reading. Same as `O_RDONLY'; only defined on
> GNU
Your message dated Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:10:05 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#95332: Already documented
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 resp
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
who:gotom
time: Tue Dec 31 02:34:28 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/document-fix.dpatch: Applied patches sent by
H. S. Teoh and GOTO Masanori. (Closes: #117680, #16)
Files:
changed:0list
added: document-fi
Repository: glibc-package/debian
who:gotom
time: Tue Dec 31 02:34:27 MST 2002
Log Message:
- debian/patches/document-fix.dpatch: Applied patches sent by
H. S. Teoh and GOTO Masanori. (Closes: #117680, #16)
Files:
changed:changelog
Your message dated Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:20:11 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#143531: Already fixed
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 responsi
At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:21:26 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, does the attached patch qualify as a fix for this bug? :-) Personally
> I don't see a need for ispell'ing C header files. (Doing an ispell on C
> *strings* in a file might be a different story, because users may actual
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 06:36:53PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:21:26 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > So I propose just applying the attached patch and closing this bug.
> > Thanks!
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> I applied it into debian-glibc cvs
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:16:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> BTW, from manpages umount(2):
>
> HISTORY
>The original umount function was called as umount(device) and would
>return ENOTBLK w
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 12:20:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:01:10 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > At any rate, I tried this with xterm, and got:
> > xterm: unable to access pty device: Permission denied
> >
> > I'm not sure if Branden worke
Actually, the libc6 upgrade breaks ssh-krb5 with exactly the same
log. Restarting ssh-krb5 fixes it, but that doesn't get done
automatically; perhaps this libc needs a resurrection of the "some
services need restarting" postinst...
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
Bug#174540: libc6-2.3.1-{7,8) breaks apt-get (and more) on mips
Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2'.
> retitle 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2-15 breaks apt (and more) on mips
Bug#174540
reassign 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
retitle 174540 libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2-15 breaks apt (and more) on mips
severity 174540 grave
done
Since I noticed this problem after an upgrade from libc6-2.3.1-5
to libc6-2.3.1-8, initially reported the bug against libc6.
I'm in doubt which of both package
At Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:42:27 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 12:20:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:01:10 -0500,
> > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > At any rate, I tried this with xterm, and got:
> > > xterm: u
Your message dated Wed, 01 Jan 2003 13:42:31 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#121899: No wonder it segfaults
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
At Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:10:56 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:16:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0500,
> > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > BTW, from manpages umount(2):
> >
> > HISTORY
> >The or
At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 21:46:45 -0800,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> We've been waiting based on Neuro's advice that sometimes Arm bugs are
> difficult to test for. The buildd is broken in that it appears to
> select the wrong header. Because all I have is a remote account on an
> Arm box, I can't test X - w
39 matches
Mail list logo