On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:17:34AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
Index: bfd/elf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.218
diff -u -p -r1.218 elf.c
--- bfd/elf.c 5 Mar 2004 11:26:04 -
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:17:34AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
Index: bfd/elf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.218
diff -u -p -r1.218 elf.c
--- bfd/elf.c 5 Mar 2004 11:26:04 -
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:49:41PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At 12 May 2004 01:20:20 +0300,
Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
At Wed, 12 May 2004 09:38:05 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
/usr/bin/objcopy: debian/libc6.1/usr/lib/debug//lib/ld-2.3.2.so: File truncated
dh_strip: command returned error code 256
148 blocks
/usr/bin/objcopy: ../libc6.1-dbg/usr/lib/debug/./lib/libpthread-0.10.so: File
At 12 May 2004 01:20:20 +0300,
Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
sure it's fixed for -13.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:49:41PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At 12 May 2004 01:20:20 +0300,
Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
At Wed, 12 May 2004 09:38:05 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
/usr/bin/objcopy: debian/libc6.1/usr/lib/debug//lib/ld-2.3.2.so: File
truncated
dh_strip: command returned error code 256
148 blocks
/usr/bin/objcopy:
../libc6.1-dbg/usr/lib/debug/./lib/libpthread-0.10.so:
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
sure it's fixed for -13.
It looks like this when upgrading from 2.3.2.ds1-11:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l
At 12 May 2004 01:20:20 +0300,
Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
sure it's fixed for -13.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l
Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you check to see whether the libraries has dramatically
changed size? If you can check that, there's a chance we can make
sure it's fixed for -13.
It looks like this when upgrading from 2.3.2.ds1-11:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Changelog does not explain why previous version was 15 MB and current
version is 50 MB. Is it not stripped for some reason?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'),
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0300, Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Changelog does not explain why previous version was 15 MB and current
version is 50 MB. Is it not stripped for some reason?
Could you check to see whether the
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Changelog does not explain why previous version was 15 MB and current
version is 50 MB. Is it not stripped for some reason?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'),
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0300, Paavo Hartikainen wrote:
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Changelog does not explain why previous version was 15 MB and current
version is 50 MB. Is it not stripped for some reason?
Could you check to see whether the
14 matches
Mail list logo
