Re: Is declaring correct deps/conflicts for versions not in stable really no longer needed?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 03:23:51PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:03:00 +0400,
> Nikita V. Youshchenko <yoush@cs.msu.su> wrote:
> > > The bug _was_ in glibc, and not in php. It is not the job of php to
> > > force you to have a non-buggy glibc installed.
> > This depends on point of view.
> > If a library < X.Y does not provide a feature needed by a package, it's a
> > common practice to make package depend on library (>= X.Y). Other
> > packages, that don't need that library feature, don't need to depend on
> > library (>= X.Y).
> > The case with libapache-mod-php4 / glibc looks similar: glibc less than
> > 2.3.2.ds1-17 does not provide neede functionality [due to a bug]. This
> > affects libapache-mod-php4, but does no affect most (all?) other packages.
> Note that you guys seems not know what dlopen() is. POSIX and SUS
> says that dlclose() does not need to unmap libraries. So, it's debian
> specific wishlist. I fixed this report because it's convenient for
> the upgrade from woody to sarge, but it's not mandatory behavior. So,
> another word, it's also libapache-mod-php4 bug during upgrade.
Actually, the segfault was not caused by a bug in libapache-mod-php4;
the bug is either a bug in openssl or in glibc, depending on your POV.
Perhaps both ;), although the triggering event was certainly the
introduction of a new upstream version of glibc -- in spite of the fact
that there don't seem to have been any changes in the dlopen() code in
that particular upstream version.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: