r3784 - glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d

2009-08-30 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Author: aurel32 Date: 2009-08-31 05:03:58 + (Mon, 31 Aug 2009) New Revision: 3784 Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk Log: Fix a typo Modified: glibc-package/trunk/debian/rules.d/debhelper.mk === --- gli

Re: hppa nptl switch

2009-08-30 Thread Carlos O'Donell
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > [Changing debian-bsd to debian-glibc, probably more appropriate to > discuss about the internal glibc code ;-)] >> > may I ask you for status of hppa nptl switch ? Petr, Aurelian, I spent the last two days rewriting the pthread structure la

Bug#249122: Link to upstream bug

2009-08-30 Thread Sven Joachim
reassign 249122 libc-bin forwarded 249122 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1484 thanks This bug had been originally reported as #224450 against libncurses5-dev, and is marked as forwarded there. It probably makes more sense to mark #249122 as forwarded, since that bug is about the l

Processed: Link to upstream bug

2009-08-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 249122 libc-bin Bug #249122 [libc6] libc6: ldconfig: Creates spurious libncurses.so.5 symlink Bug reassigned from package 'libc6' to 'libc-bin'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions 2.3.2.ds1-12. > forwarded 249122 http://sourceware.

Processed: Re: Bug#544145: libc6-i686 - Segfaults on amd64/xen

2009-08-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 544145 linux-2.6 2.6.30-1 Bug #544145 [libc6-i686] libc6-i686 - Segfaults on amd64/xen Bug reassigned from package 'libc6-i686' to 'linux-2.6'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions eglibc/2.9-25. Bug #544145 [linux-2.6] libc6-i686 -

Bug#544145: libc6-i686 - Segfaults on amd64/xen

2009-08-30 Thread Bastian Blank
reassign 544145 linux-2.6 2.6.30-1 thanks On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:57:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:31:43AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Hmm, just below the dynlinker, we have the vdso. > vdso was the point. I'm pretty sure that it is a problem either in the k