Bug#70762: Fixed in woody and later

This problem appears to be fixed in woody and sid. I guess it can be closed now. ~[505]$ ulimit -v 81920 ~[506]$ tail /dev/zero tail: memory exhausted -- Yann Dirson[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Why make M$-Bill richer richer ? Debian-related: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Support Debian GNU/Linux: Pro:

Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license): but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. I

Bug#208428: more precise location of the bug

This bug was traced down (using gdb and libc6-dbg, 2.3.2-4 source) to an infinite loop (lines 287--424) in glibc-2.3.2/nis/nss_compat/compat-grp.c: static enum nss_status internal_getgrnam_r (const char *name, struct group *result, ent_t *ent, char *buffer, size_t buflen, int *errnop). (This

Processing of glibc_2.3.2-5_i386.changes

glibc_2.3.2-5_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: glibc_2.3.2-5.dsc glibc_2.3.2-5.diff.gz libc6_2.3.2-5_i386.deb libc-udeb_2.3.2-5_i386.udeb libc6-dev_2.3.2-5_i386.deb libc6-prof_2.3.2-5_i386.deb libc6-dbg_2.3.2-5_i386.deb

glibc_2.3.2-5_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: glibc-doc_2.3.2-5_all.deb to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.2-5_all.deb glibc_2.3.2-5.diff.gz to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.2-5.diff.gz glibc_2.3.2-5.dsc to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.2-5.dsc libc-udeb_2.3.2-5_i386.udeb to pool/main/g/glibc/libc-udeb_2.3.2-5_i386.udeb

Bug#194637: marked as done (Buffer overflow (1 byte) in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ttyname_r.c)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:10 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#194637: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#205383: marked as done (Samba dos charset=CP932 fails after upgrade)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#205679: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#204958: marked as done (Leave it alone option in fresh install breaks future upgrades of locales)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#204958: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#206294: marked as done (libc6: 2.3.2-2 seems to be broken with NIS)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:10 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#204711: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#194289: marked as done (definition errors in an_ES locale)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:10 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#194289: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#206784: marked as done (locales: locale-gen doesn't actually seem to generate locales?)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#206784: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#204711: marked as done (libc6: PAM broken, login impossible, possibly NIS related)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:10 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#204711: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#205118: marked as done (locales: lo_LA.UTF-8 is broken)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#205118: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#205679: marked as done ((no subject))

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#205679: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#158354: marked as done (libc6: Missing MD5SUMs for libc6 package)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:10 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#158354: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#206645: marked as done (Can't generate `Leave.alone' locale)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#204958: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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

Bug#206663: marked as done (glibc: some GNU/KFreeBSD fixes)

Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:33:11 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#206663: fixed in glibc 2.3.2-5 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