Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 09:51:27 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1216
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
Log:
Actually do this change on debian/control.in/main, not only debian/control
* Lintian cleans:
- Remove
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 09:55:31 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1217
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/i386.mk
Log:
Fix to the changes introduced in revision 1200
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/i386.mk
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 09:59:27 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1218
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/ld-multiarch.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* Multiarch support:
- Add ld-multiarch.diff
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 10:04:15 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1219
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/ldconfig-multiarch.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* Multiarch support:
- Add
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 10:07:58 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1220
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc-alt.install
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc.install
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 10:15:26 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1221
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/rtld.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 10:22:36 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1222
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/amd64.mk
Log:
Remove previous changes concerning the dynamic linker path on amd64, as they
appear to break the installer.
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 10:30:14 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1223
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/local/manpages/ldd.1
Log:
* Add -u option to the ldd manpage. (Closes: #354074)
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
Andreas Jochens a écrit :
Hello,
Hi,
[..]
Yes, without the /lib64 symlink the system breaks in any case because
the path to the linker /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 - which is hardcoded
by gcc into every binary - no longer exists without the /lib64 symlink.
But I liked the fact that up to
Michael Banck a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:00:36AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
A few Debian architectures, are still using and old gcc to build the
glibc. I think we should try to move slowly to gcc 4.0, as other
versions (mainly gcc-3.4), won't be supported as gcc 4.0 will be. Also
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 11:03:27 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1224
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/hurd.mk
Log:
* Merged a patch from
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 11:18:30 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1225
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/resource_h.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* Add resource_h.diff (RLIMIT_NICE and
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 11:33:46 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1226
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/hppa-inlining.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* Add hppa-inlining.diff (Increase the
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:30:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
By introducing a new define, you are breaking standard compliance.
Well, there is no better way. You want to preserve binary compatibility
at the expense of all else. I want to preserve standards compliance at
the expense
On 2/23/06, Eddy Petrişor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may also define
lang_term U0072U006FU006E
lang_lib U0072U0075U006D
lang_term ron ?
lang_lib rud ?
Are you sure?
What are the meanings of these items?
These are ISO 639-2 codes, see
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 16:18:45 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1227
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/i386
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/control.mk
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 16:50:25 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1228
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
- Cosmetic fixes by debchanges
- Change the distribution to unstable
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 17:06:15 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1229
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control
glibc-package/trunk/debian/control.in/main
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/resource_h.diff
Log:
Fixes that I forget to put back in the SVN from my local
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 02:39:46PM +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
I managed to do it today, so here it is (hopefully) the final version
of the patch for locale ro_RO.
This fixes also:
+ * locales/ro_RO: first_weekday and first_workday are both Monday
+ * locales/ro_RO: added
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 19:52:14 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1230
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc-alt.install
glibc-package/trunk/debian/debhelper.in/libc.install
Log:
One more small fix before upload.
Modified:
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 20:45:50 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1231
Added:
glibc-package/tags/2.3.6-2/
Log:
Tagging glibc 2.3.6-2
Copied: glibc-package/tags/2.3.6-2 (from rev 1230, glibc-package/trunk)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Author: aurel32
Date: 2006-02-23 20:47:02 + (Thu, 23 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1232
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Update changelog for version 2.3.6-3.
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
===
Hi all!
I have just uploaded glibc 2.3.6-2. It is now time to think to the next
upload, glibc 2.3.6-3.
Personally here is the things I would like to see in it:
- Split of libc6 and libc6-dev into libraries and binaries. This is
required as per policy, but become more important for multiarch
Hi!
Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
Bdale Garbee a écrit :
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port
compliant with the FHS, which is almost impossible given the current
Your message dated Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#240901: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#274367: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#281863: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#289853: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#320273: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#295855: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#323013: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#325226: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#325802: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#325802: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#325802: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#328088: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#328088: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#333565: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#339482: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#339482: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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
glibc_2.3.6-2_hppa.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.3.6-2.dsc
glibc_2.3.6-2.diff.gz
glibc-doc_2.3.6-2_all.deb
locales_2.3.6-2_all.deb
libc6_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
libc6-dev_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
Your message dated Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:15 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#328088: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#339482: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#344836: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#345481: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#347762: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#351638: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#352263: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#352416: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#352597: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#352636: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#353611: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#354074: fixed in glibc 2.3.6-2
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
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.3.6-2_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.3.6-2_all.deb
glibc_2.3.6-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.6-2.diff.gz
glibc_2.3.6-2.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.6-2.dsc
libc6-dbg_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.3.6-2_hppa.deb
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:58:15PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
Bdale Garbee a écrit :
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port
compliant
Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:58:15PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
Bdale Garbee a écrit :
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 01:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The only change planned is to make libc6-dev-i386 and libc6-i386 provide
a glibc on amd64 instead of ia32-libs. It will be in /emul/ia32-linux (I
still have to find how to do that cleanly in the debhelper files).
Bdale, do you agree
Bdale Garbee writes:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 01:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The only change planned is to make libc6-dev-i386 and libc6-i386 provide
a glibc on amd64 instead of ia32-libs. It will be in /emul/ia32-linux (I
still have to find how to do that cleanly in the debhelper
After a discussion on IRC, it seems there is no consensus about how
multiarch should be done. Therefore I stop working on that (patches are
still welcome for glibc).
Is this really the best thing to do?
Even though there is no consensus (I overread the thread and anyway
most parts of it
59 matches
Mail list logo
