Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-29 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:27:24AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Pointer should be put into intpointer_t if you must. It is intptr_t from stdint.h. Or better make a union of int and pointer if you have to mix the two. This is

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-29 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:27:24AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Pointer should be put into intpointer_t if you must. It is intptr_t from stdint.h. Right, sorry. too late at night. Or better

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-29 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 04:27, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : Pierre HABOUZIT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tag 362959 = tag 362959 + patch thanks I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes pointer on things that should

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-28 Thread Pierre HABOUZIT
tag 362959 = tag 362959 + patch thanks I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things that are gints (32bits). it had the nice effect to reset a loop counter to 0, hence the 100% CPU loop.

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-28 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Pierre HABOUZIT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tag 362959 = tag 362959 + patch thanks I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things that are gints (32bits). Pointer should be put into

Re: Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-25 Thread Steve Langasek
severity 340609 normal thanks On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:19:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: # 340609 remove fai/2.10.1 I'm not horribly impressed by the severity of this bug. Yeah, it would be nice to use a more appropriate FHS directory, but

Re: Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs: Nathanael Nerode wrote: # 365680, security remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6 This bug is fixed by 0.5.4-6sarge1 which was uploaded to stable-security, and (according

Re: Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060523 22:14]: On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:05:19PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs: Nathanael Nerode wrote: # 365680, security remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6 This bug is fixed by

Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-17 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Debatable ones removed from list. # 366501 -- now 8d old instead of 24h, no maintainer comment remove bootcd/2.53 # 362959 remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1 # 365794 remove cbrowser/0.8-1 # 365680, security remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6 # 365181 remove s-http-server/20051218-1 # 340177, security remove

Re: Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-17 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
Here's some possibly useful information about some of these bugs: Nathanael Nerode wrote: # 365680, security remove cgiirc/0.5.4-6 This bug is fixed by 0.5.4-6sarge1 which was uploaded to stable-security, and (according to Joey in that bug log) will propagate to testing and unstable

Re: Easy removals B-G reminder

2006-05-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: # 340609 remove fai/2.10.1 I'm not horribly impressed by the severity of this bug. Yeah, it would be nice to use a more appropriate FHS directory, but given that as near as I can tell from the bug log, this FHS violation happens only during

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-10 Thread Isaac Clerencia
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:48, Steve Langasek wrote: # 362959 remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1 Seems to be pretty unreproducible across most architectures, may not even be a bug anymore -- deferred for the moment. I've downgraded the severity to normal and marked as unreproducible, may be it was a

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-10 Thread Steve Langasek
severity 362959 grave thanks On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:12:26AM +0200, Isaac Clerencia wrote: On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:48, Steve Langasek wrote: # 362959 remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1 Seems to be pretty unreproducible across most architectures, may not even be a bug anymore -- deferred

Easy removals: B

2006-05-09 Thread Nathanael Nerode
C coming soon # 358833 # Comment: 07-May-2006: dondelelcaro: This module will land in 2.6.17, # so will be removed once 2.6.17 is in unstable. remove bcm43xx/20060212-3 # 365189 remove bidentd/1.0.10-7 # 366501 # This package also suffers from producing nearly content-free arch-all #

Re: Easy removals: B

2006-05-09 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:34:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: # 358833 # Comment: 07-May-2006: dondelelcaro: This module will land in 2.6.17, # so will be removed once 2.6.17 is in unstable. remove bcm43xx/20060212-3 Not applicable to testing, which still has kernel 2.6.15; does our