#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #269238
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4028
# * remote status changed: (?) -> RESOLVED
#
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #153022
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3976
# * remote status changed: (?) -> NEW
usertags
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #234880
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3996
# * remote status changed: (?) -> ASSIGNED
use
FYI: The status of the glibc source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.3.6.ds1-8
Current version: 2.3.6.ds1-10
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more informatio
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-13 02:47:31 +0100 (Tue, 13 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1986
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
Log:
Fix a typo in the changelog
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
==
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> close 326508 2.3.5-3
Bug#326508: mplayerplug-in crashes because of libc6 on Sarge
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug marked as fixed in versi
Your message dated Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:04:09 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line libc6-dev: g++-2.95/epoll.h conflict
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 yo
Your message dated Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:54:00 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#271062: /usr/include/sys/select.h: fd_set warnings in C++
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
Your message dated Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:56:10 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line libc6-dev: iruserok not declared anywhere
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 n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 271062 + wontfix
Bug#271062: /usr/include/sys/select.h: fd_set warnings in C++
Tags were: patch
Tags added: wontfix
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrat
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> severity 367633 wishlist
Bug#367633: [Patch] Fix build Error math-tests
Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409288: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#98852: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#395427: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#391372: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#119540: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#399035: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#363442: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#403980: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#391858: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#272265: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#405738: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#46175: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#404379: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#381294: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#403270: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#347358: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#55648: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 you
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#364098: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#165417: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#350579: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#349688: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#394128: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#365233: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#389084: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325600: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#397813: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#374945: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#269238: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:32:07 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#258740: fixed in glibc 2.5-0exp5
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 yo
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.5-0exp5_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-0exp5_all.deb
glibc_2.5-0exp5.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp5.diff.gz
glibc_2.5-0exp5.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-0exp5.dsc
libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp5_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.5-0exp5_am
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libc6-i386_2.5-0exp5_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override
says standard.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and
glibc_2.5-0exp5_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.5-0exp5.dsc
glibc_2.5-0exp5.diff.gz
glibc-doc_2.5-0exp5_all.deb
locales_2.5-0exp5_all.deb
libc6_2.5-0exp5_amd64.deb
libc6-dev_2.5-0exp5_amd64.deb
libc6-prof_2.5-0exp5_amd64.deb
libc6-pic_2
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package glibc
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status report for
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-12 18:04:35 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1985
Removed:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/kfreebsd/local-amd64-dl-machine.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/
Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:50:54 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#377416: libc6-dev: __THROW defined in is
broken with GCC 3.3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-02-12 15:51:10 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1984
Removed:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/submitted-argph.h.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series
Log
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-02-12 12:11:43 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1983
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series.kfreebsd-amd64
Log:
Fix patch level of kfreebsd/local-amd64-dl-machine.diff
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/series.k
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> package glibc glibc-doc libc0.1 libc0.1-dbg libc0.1-dev libc0.1-dev-i386
> libc0.1-i386 libc0.1-i686 libc0.1-pic libc0.1-prof libc0.1-udeb libc0.3
> libc0.3-dbg libc0.3-dev libc0.3-
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> package glibc glibc-doc libc0.1 libc0.1-dbg libc0.1-dev libc0.1-dev-i386
> libc0.1-i386 libc0.1-i686 libc0.1-pic libc0.1-prof libc0.1-udeb libc0.3
> libc0.3-dbg libc0.3-dev libc0.3-
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-02-12 11:08:39 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1982
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/cvs-getent-wrong-struct-size.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
backport a fix for #347358.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> severity 354292 wishlist
Bug#354292: turns out iconv's -t was optional all along
Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-02-12 11:01:19 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1981
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
Log:
bug fixed in glibc2.5
Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Modified: glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
===
# control bcc-ed
tag 264887 + moreinfo
thanks
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:41:27PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.2.ds1-13
> Tags: patch
>
> When the GLOB_APPEND flag is passed to glob(), the call is supposed to
> tack new results on to the ones already represented in th
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # control bcc-ed
> tag 264887 + moreinfo
Bug#264887: GLOB_APPEND ignored by glob() in at least one place
Tags were: patch
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system adm
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.27
> forwarded 55648 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4028
Bug#55648: date outputs wrong things about unknown timezones
Bug#119540: shellutils: date: erratic TZ handling
Bug#
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-02-12 10:41:46 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1980
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
Log:
looks like the bug is merged, close every single one ;)
Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Modified: glibc-package/branches/
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-02-12 10:39:41 +0100 (Mon, 12 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 1979
Added:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/submitted-date-and-unknown-tz.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/changelog
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches
64 matches
Mail list logo
