On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
I'll take a look at the adjtimex problem. However, static binaries are
always going to be second-class citizens as far as glibc is concerned
and you should avoid them whenever possible.
Ok, how about doing that? not
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 10:38, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
I'll take a look at the adjtimex problem. However, static binaries are
always going to be second-class citizens as far as glibc is concerned
and you should avoid them
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:44:23AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The adjtimex bug has been assigned to libc6 already, with a note that
its now severity serious as it breaks d-i. I'm proposing to do binary
NMUs for alpha, ia64 busybox-cvs : hence I'm CC'ing all the uploaders
for busybox CVS
Status report on this bug, perhaps? It's well after March.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Gordon Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03 Aug 2003 00:30:55 +0100,
Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 18:28, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
packages.qa.debian.org claims that 2.3.2-1 was accepted on 2003-07-18.
And that it's out of date on sparc because it needs to be version
2.3.1-17. (?!)
The sparc upload of
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
I'll take a look at the adjtimex problem. However, static binaries are
always going to be second-class citizens as far as glibc is concerned
and you should avoid them whenever possible.
Ok, how about doing that? not
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 10:38, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
I'll take a look at the adjtimex problem. However, static binaries are
always going to be second-class citizens as far as glibc is concerned
and you should avoid them
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:44:23AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The adjtimex bug has been assigned to libc6 already, with a note that
its now severity serious as it breaks d-i. I'm proposing to do binary
NMUs for alpha, ia64 busybox-cvs : hence I'm CC'ing all the uploaders
for busybox CVS
Status report on this bug, perhaps? It's well after March.
--
Gordon Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:44:23AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The adjtimex bug has been assigned to libc6 already, with a note that
its now severity serious as it breaks d-i. I'm proposing to do binary
NMUs for alpha, ia64 busybox-cvs : hence I'm CC'ing all the uploaders
for busybox CVS
At 03 Aug 2003 00:30:55 +0100,
Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 18:28, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
packages.qa.debian.org claims that 2.3.2-1 was accepted on 2003-07-18.
And that it's out of date on sparc because it needs to be version
2.3.1-17. (?!)
The sparc upload of
13 matches
Mail list logo
