[arch-dev-public] [signoff] glibc-2.12.1-4
Another day, another glibc... This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses. I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced. If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something... Signoff both, Allan
Am 26.10.2010 03:38, schrieb Allan McRae:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
Thomas not know bug. Computer still boot. Thomas happy. Hurray! Thomas sign off.
On 26/10/10 11:38, Allan McRae wrote:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
OK, things seem fine for this so I think it is time for this to move. Signoff away! Allan
On 03/11/10 12:50, Allan McRae wrote:
On 26/10/10 11:38, Allan McRae wrote:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
OK, things seem fine for this so I think it is time for this to move. Signoff away!
I said... Signoff away! :P
On 11/09/2010 09:48 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 03/11/10 12:50, Allan McRae wrote:
On 26/10/10 11:38, Allan McRae wrote:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
OK, things seem fine for this so I think it is time for this to move. Signoff away!
I said... Signoff away! :P
signoff x86_64 -- Ionuț
On 09/11/10 18:54, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 11/09/2010 09:48 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 03/11/10 12:50, Allan McRae wrote:
On 26/10/10 11:38, Allan McRae wrote:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
OK, things seem fine for this so I think it is time for this to move. Signoff away!
I said... Signoff away! :P
signoff x86_64
And an i686?
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/11/10 18:54, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 11/09/2010 09:48 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 03/11/10 12:50, Allan McRae wrote:
On 26/10/10 11:38, Allan McRae wrote:
Another day, another glibc...
This adjusts the static linking fix. The one previously used is a more correct fix but appears incomplete. I have replaced this by a hack fix that Fedora uses.
I will leave this in [testing] a while. My concern is the previous patch apparently fixed a bunch of segfault bugs in glibc and I am hoping that these do not get reintroduced.
If only upstream made a proper fix for this. Saying upstream is doing not much about this bug would imply that they are doing something...
OK, things seem fine for this so I think it is time for this to move. Signoff away!
I said... Signoff away! :P
signoff x86_64
And an i686?
I did post it on arch-general, but I'm going to repeat it here: Signoff i686, x86_64
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Jan Steffens
-
Thomas Bächler