Package: libc6
Version: 2.5-1
Severity: critical
If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
Setting up libc6 (2.5-1) ...
dpkg: relocation error: /lib/tls/libc.so.6: symbol _dl_out
Package: tzdata
Version: 2007e-2
Severity: normal
Hi, it seems that in the template file for the tzdata package, for the
template: tzdata/Areas, the choice Australia is missing (actually, other
choices seems to be missing as well):
The current value in package is:
Africa, America, Antarctica,
> If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
>
> I use kernel 2.6.20.4.
Which architecture?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:26:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.5-1
> Severity: critical
>
> If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
>
> Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ...
> Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
> Se
Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:26:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Package: libc6
>> Version: 2.5-1
>> Severity: critical
>>
>> If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
>>
>> Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb)
>> ...
>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 05:42:57AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
> >
> > I use kernel 2.6.20.4.
>
> Which architecture?
obviously i386:
>> Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb)
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O
tzdata_2007e-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
tzdata_2007e-3.dsc
tzdata_2007e-3.diff.gz
tzdata_2007e-3_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
Accepted:
tzdata_2007e-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2007e-3.diff.gz
tzdata_2007e-3.dsc
to pool/main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2007e-3.dsc
tzdata_2007e-3_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tzdata/tzdata_2007e-3_all.deb
Override entries for your package:
tzdata_2007e-3.dsc - source libs
tzdata_2007e-3_a
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:02:08 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#419191: fixed in tzdata 2007e-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 this is not the case it is now you
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 10:57:02 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2058
Modified:
tzdata/trunk/debian/changelog
tzdata/trunk/debian/po/en.po
tzdata/trunk/debian/po/templates.pot
tzdata/trunk/debian/rules
tzdata/trunk/debian/templates
Log:
* Add missing Australia area
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 10:57:27 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2059
Added:
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/debian/changelog
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/debian/config
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/debian/po/
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/debian/po/en.po
tzdata/tags/2007e-3/debian/p
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 11:37:51 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2060
Modified:
tzdata/trunk/debian/changelog
tzdata/trunk/debian/config
tzdata/trunk/debian/postinst
Log:
* Don't ask debconf questions during the first upgrade if the timezone
is already configured.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.5-1
> Severity: critical
>
> If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
>
> Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ...
> Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
> Setting up libc6 (2.5-1) ...
> dpkg: relo
Hi,
The glibc package version 2.5-1 is marked as building on the mips and
mipsel build daemons for more than 3 days. It usually takes 2 to 3 hours
to build.
Could you please have a look and tell us what happened?
Thanks,
Aurelien
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.5-1
Severity: grave
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
The recent libc6 makes printf segfault with some kind of arguments.
I do not (yet) test all of the possibility, but here is a small example :
#include
int main() {
//double a=0.009996246282942
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > Package: libc6
> > Version: 2.5-1
> > Severity: critical
> >
> > If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
> >
> > Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using
> > .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
> > S
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.2
> forwarded 419225 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4362
Bug#419225: segfault on some kind of printf
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to
http://sourceware
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.2
> forwarded 419225 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4362
Bug#419225: segfault on some kind of printf
Forwarded-to-address changed from
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 15:25:37 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2061
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/cvs-printf_fp.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
* patches/any/cvs-printf_fp.diff: new patc
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 15:30:45 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2062
Removed:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/cvs-printf_fp.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/cvs-printf_fp-c.diff
glibc-package/trunk/debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>>> Package: libc6
>>> Version: 2.5-1
>>> Severity: critical
>>>
>>> If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
>>>
>>> Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using
>>> .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ... Unpack
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 16:08:56 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2063
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/depflags.pl
Log:
Fix tzdata version number
Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/sysdeps/depflags.pl
==
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 16:23:59 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2064
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/cvs-printf_fp-c.diff
Log:
Merge the two patches of any/cvs-printf_fp-c.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/glibc-2.5/debian/patches/any/cvs-pr
> > There are a lot of files in /lib/tls that belong to libc 2.3.2
> > (libdl-2.3.2.so ...). Perhaps they were not deleted by an old upgrade.
>
> Could you please give us the date of those files (ls -l /lib/tls would
> be the best), so that we can try to trace the problem to a libc6 version?
Here
> Here are the listing of /lib/tls:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 88904 2005-05-10 22:01 ld-2.3.2.so
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2006-07-14 00:59 ld-linux.so.2 -> ld-2.3.2.so
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root9324 2005-05-10 22:01 libanl-2.3.2.so
Which version of libc6 was installed before you att
glibc_2.5-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
glibc_2.5-2.dsc
glibc_2.5-2.diff.gz
glibc-doc_2.5-2_all.deb
locales_2.5-2_all.deb
libc6_2.5-2_amd64.deb
libc6-dev_2.5-2_amd64.deb
libc6-prof_2.5-2_amd64.deb
libc6-pic_2.5-2_amd64.deb
locales-all_2.5
Accepted:
glibc-doc_2.5-2_all.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc-doc_2.5-2_all.deb
glibc_2.5-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-2.diff.gz
glibc_2.5-2.dsc
to pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.5-2.dsc
libc6-dbg_2.5-2_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.5-2_amd64.deb
libc6-dev-i386_2.5-2_amd
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libc6-i386_2.5-2_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 the
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418337: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418332: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418426: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418378: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418521: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418748: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418301: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418872: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418340: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418472: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418720: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#419225: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418881: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418365: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418545: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#416716: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:02:05 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#418767: fixed in glibc 2.5-2
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 r
#
# 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 #419225
# * http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4362
# * remote status changed: (?) -> ASSIGNED
use
Package: tzdata
Version: 2007e-2
Severity: normal
The config script could check $2 to see if it's being upgraded from a
pre-debconf-using version, and skip asking questions if so. There's no
need to bother everyone with redundant time zone questions on upgrade.
-- System Information:
Debian Relea
Joey Hess a écrit :
> Package: tzdata
> Version: 2007e-2
> Severity: normal
>
> The config script could check $2 to see if it's being upgraded from a
> pre-debconf-using version, and skip asking questions if so. There's no
> need to bother everyone with redundant time zone questions on upgrade.
>
Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 18:46 schrieben Sie:
> > Here are the listing of /lib/tls:
> >
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 88904 2005-05-10 22:01 ld-2.3.2.so
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2006-07-14 00:59 ld-linux.so.2 ->
> > ld-2.3.2.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root9324 2005-05-10 22:01
> > libanl-2
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 10:21:52PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 18:46 schrieben Sie:
> > > Here are the listing of /lib/tls:
> > >
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 88904 2005-05-10 22:01 ld-2.3.2.so
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2006-07-14 00:59 ld-linux.so.2 ->
Author: aurel32
Date: 2007-04-14 23:02:25 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2066
Modified:
tzdata/trunk/debian/config
Log:
Automatically fix the timezone from UTC to Etc/UTC
Modified: tzdata/trunk/debian/config
===
--- tzdat
Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:25:44 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#372515: iconv(): Returns EILSEQ when it can't convert to
the output encoding.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 415573 + moreinfo
Bug#415573: libc6: uninitialised value in manager.c:128
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administ
tag 415573 + moreinfo
thanks
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:33:52PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.6.ds1-13
> Severity: important
>
>
> Valgrind has been reporting the following already for a long time:
>
> ==16241== Thread 2:
> ==16241== Conditional jump or move depend
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-04-14 23:48:38 + (Sat, 14 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2067
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/submitted-unistd_XOPEN_VERSION.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
Closes: #203412.
* patc
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 05:57:43PM +0200, Benoît Dejean wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.6-15
> Severity: minor
>
> Hi,
> using getifaddrs i get the following valgrind warning :
>
> ==12949== Syscall param socketcall.sendto(msg) points to uninitialised byte(s)
> ==12949==at 0xE633
Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:37:13 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#377512: libc6: valgrind warning about getifaddrs
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 c
Author: madcoder
Date: 2007-04-15 00:45:03 + (Sun, 15 Apr 2007)
New Revision: 2068
Added:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/any/cvs-glob-c.diff
Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
Closes: #234880 (glob)
* patches/any/cvs-gl
Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:39:48 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Retitle to reflect partial fix
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 res
Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:48:31 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#316147: iconv: options for illegal characters
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
60 matches
Mail list logo
