On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 01:47:14PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> I am not sure if he did my suggestion of moving the long l to the last field
> in the union, to see if that helps it.
>
Actually, it doesn't help. Union ordering isn't really significant, it's
just that the long double apprently se
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:39:49PM +0100, Tomas Berndtsson wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, I've narrowed down the offending code to this 40k patch. Note, it
> > has nothing to do with the zlib using code, since I already tried
> > compiling --without-zlib, and it still g
The following patch(taking from suggestions in bug#74259) is the culprit(as
verified by Ben).
Index: lib/nfmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/dpkg/dpkg/lib/nfmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
---
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I've narrowed down the offending code to this 40k patch. Note, it
> has nothing to do with the zlib using code, since I already tried
> compiling --without-zlib, and it still gives a sigbus. If I take this
> patch and do a -R with it on a 1.8.0 tree, a
damnit, here's the patch.
--
---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=--===-=-=--
Ok, I've narrowed down the offending code to this 40k patch. Note, it
has nothing to do with the zlib using code, since I already tried
compiling --without-zlib, and it still gives a sigbus. If I take this
patch and do a -R with it on a 1.8.0 tree, and compile, I get no sigbus.
I've spent way too m
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:59:03PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:24:52PM +0100, Tomas Berndtsson wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I originally thought it was a kernel issue from a user. Then when it
> > > happened to be, I thought it was a kerne
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 01:36:23AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > > My only concern now is, does 1.7.2 work if I recompile it against the
> > > current libc6-dev. If it does, then the thing to do is start checking
> >
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > My only concern now is, does 1.7.2 work if I recompile it against the
> > current libc6-dev. If it does, then the thing to do is start checking
> > the diff between these two versions for possible alignment issues.
>
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> My only concern now is, does 1.7.2 work if I recompile it against the
> current libc6-dev. If it does, then the thing to do is start checking
> the diff between these two versions for possible alignment issues.
Run it on an alpha and you'll get alignment warninrs in
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:24:52PM +0100, Tomas Berndtsson wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I originally thought it was a kernel issue from a user. Then when it
> > happened to be, I thought it was a kernel issue. After trying out an
> > older kernel, known to work well, I th
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:13:24PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > Sparc users, keep your old dpkg on hold, don't upgrade it.
>
> No, do upgrade it and try to figure out where exactly it goes wrong.
No, I don't want them to, because I will. I almost crapped up t
On 11 Jan 2001, Tomas Berndtsson wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Sparc users, keep your old dpkg on hold, don't upgrade it.
> >
> > No, do upgrade it and try to figure out where exactly it goes wrong.
>
> See my original mail to de
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > Sparc users, keep your old dpkg on hold, don't upgrade it.
>
> No, do upgrade it and try to figure out where exactly it goes wrong.
See my original mail to debian-devel and debian-sparc for a piece of
the dpkg -D777
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> > Sparc users, keep your old dpkg on hold, don't upgrade it.
>
> No, do upgrade it and try to figure out where exactly it goes wrong.
Btw, I'll look at this when I get home later tonight. This isn't saying I
know wha
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I originally thought it was a kernel issue from a user. Then when it
> happened to be, I thought it was a kernel issue. After trying out an
> older kernel, known to work well, I thought it was libc6, then I find
> out that dpkg 1.7.2 works perfectly well.
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> Sparc users, keep your old dpkg on hold, don't upgrade it.
No, do upgrade it and try to figure out where exactly it goes wrong.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your c
17 matches
Mail list logo
