debian/patches review
Hi,
I checked at debian/patches/*, and how these patches should be handled
after applying the latest 2-2-branch glibc-cvs.dpatch.
Please review my check. If it's fine to include this in our cvs,
then I put it on debian/patches/0status. It's ok?
IMHO in -14 or -15, we update glibc-cvs.dpatch, then simply removed
'remove' status files from 0list.
Filename.dpatch
2.2 CVS: 2.2 cvs has it.
2.3 CVS: 2.3 cvs has it.
Comment: comment about it.
Status: see below.
Status type is
debian specific: Debian specific file.
remove: It can be removed if we include glibc-cvs latest patch.
already removed: It was already removed to apply, but exists.
keep in 2.2.x: It's already in 2.2.9x branch, so during 2.2.x we keep applying.
keep: Some reason exist to keep applying.
discussion: We may need discussion.
merge: I hope this patch should be send to upstream.
Before merge, we keep applying it.
rewrite: We need rewrite patch.
unknown: unknown
glibc-cvs.dpatch
2.2 CVS: up to date 2002-08-07 or later.
2.3 CVS: -
Comment: the latest glibc-2-2-branch
Status: debian specific.
template.dpatch
2.2 CVS: -
2.3 CVS: -
Comment: Debian specific template file.
Status: debian specific.
glibcbug.dpatch
2.2 CVS: -
2.3 CVS: -
Comment: Debian specific.
Status: debian specific.
xdr-array-security.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in.
2.3 CVS: already in.
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
glibc-openoffice-fixes.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
ia64-strncpy.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
syserrlist.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
pthread_create-manpage.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
resolv-nss_dns.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
sparc-misc.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
mathpatch.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
hurd-ioperms.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
hurd-lfs64.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
hurd-update.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13.
Status: remove
locales-de_CH.dpatch
2.2 CVS: already in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: will be removed after -13 (and it's my miss patch).
Status: remove
string2-pointer-arith.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: I tested sample programs (compiled with gcc-2.95, 3.0,
3.1) stated in #45824, #44491, #44697, but I can't
reproduce this problem without this patch.
More test is needed but IMHO it can be removed after
-13.
Status: remove
glibc22-s390-resource.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: we keep applying this patch until moving to 2.2.9x.
Status: keep in 2.2.x
gmon-start.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: already in
Comment: we keep applying this patch until moving to 2.2.9x.
Status: keep in 2.2.x
db1-addon-enabler.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: db1 addon enabling patch. keep applying it.
Status: keep
glibc22-getaddrinfo.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: BenC and others already discussed about this patch
around 2001-11-24 on libc-alpha, and the result was
Ulrich rejected this patch and he would rewrite
resolver code. However it has not been resolved yet...
We keep applying this patch for the moment.
Status: keep
ip6-fix.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: BenC posted about this issue around 2002-02-05 on
libc-alpha, but no responce. arpa -> int is useful so
we keep applying this patch for the moment.
Status: keep
glibc22-getdents-fix.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: It was discussed, but it's not applied (See #86877).
we keep applying this patch for the moment.
Status: keep
fhs-linux-paths.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: This patch modifies pathname /var/db -> /var/lib/misc,
following FHS. If RPM distributions use it,
then it's debian specific currently.
we keep applying this patch for the moment.
Status: keep
glibc22-locales.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: This patch is borrowed from SuSE. It's fine to
merge within upstream, but I doubt all locales are
checked or not.
We keep applying this patch for the moment.
Status: keep
glibc2.2.6-nice.dpatch
2.2 CVS: -
2.3 CVS: -
Comment: It's already commented out. BenC?
Status: already removed
sparc64-got-fix.dpatch
2.2 CVS: -
2.3 CVS: -
Comment: It's already commented out. BenC?
Status: already removed
locales-stuff.dpatch
2.2 CVS: partially in
2.3 CVS: partially in
Comment: de_CH part is already in, ld-collate and locale.alias
are not in. ld-collate should be sent to upstream,
but locale.alias is difficult to handle because
Russian regional specific.
Status: rewrite
glibc22-misc.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in?
2.3 CVS: not in?
Comment: At the first, we need to separate this file
into appropriate patches.
es_AR patch should be sent to upstream (#108373).
Status: rewrite
glibc22-eo_EO.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: I concern that EO is valid name or appropriate
regional name in ISO-3166. IMHO regional name EO
should be dropped. Yes, "eo" locale name is more
appropriate. We may need to discuss with people at
debian-esperanto@lists.debian.org .
Status: discussion
glibc22-hppa-unwind.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: After checking it's ok or not, then submit to upstream
if it's correct. This patch is applied only kernel
version lower checking.
Status: merge
glibc22-m68k-compat.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: Should be merged within upstream if it's ok.
Status: merge
glibc22-m68k-fpic.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: Should be merged within upstream if it's ok.
Status: merge
glibc22-hppa-tests.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: IMHO, It's fine. It should be merged into upstream
(#137513).
Status: merge
hppa-data-start.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: According to #133666, it's needed for hppa.
I also think this symbol is lack, so should be send to
upstream.
Status: merge
ia64-reloc-none.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: According to #135314 and so on, it's needed and should
be sent to upstream.
Status: merge
ldd.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: it's useful, so we should send to upstream.
I want to know upstream author's opinion.
Status: merge
powerpc-sysconf.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: I think this patch is right, we should send it to
upstream author.
Status: merge
various-lsb-fixes.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: The behavior of setpriority in XPG6 says as following,
so this patch should be sent to upstream, IMHO.
I wonder why it's not in main source.
17860 The default nice value is {NZERO}; lower nice values shall cause more favorable scheduling.
17861 While the range of valid nice values is [0,{NZERO}*2-1], implementations may enforce more
17862 restrictive limits. If value+{NZERO} is less than the system s lowest supported nice value,
17863 setpriority ( ) shalls et the nice value to the lowest supported value; if value+{NZERO} is greater
17864 than the system s highest supported nice value, setpriority ( ) shall set the nice value to the highest
17865 supported value.
17866 Only a process with appropriate privileges can lower its nice value.
17867 PS|TPS Any processes or threads using SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR shall be unaffected by a call to
17868 setpriority ( ). This is not considered an error. A process which subsequently reverts to
17869 SCHED_OTHER need not have its priority affected by such a setpriority ( ) call.
Status: merge
arm-no-hwcap.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in.
2.3 CVS: not in.
Comment: This patch only drops (HWCAP_ARM_HALF | HWCAP_ARM_FAST_MULT)
from HWCAP_IMPORTANT.
I couldn't understand why it was dropped. Ben?
Status: unknown
glibc22-hppa-pthreads.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: ? Ben?
Status: unknown
glibc22-hppa-rela.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: ? Ben?
Status: unknown
glibc22-nss-upgrade.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: ? Ben?
Status: unknown
glibc22-ttyname-devfs.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: ? I don't know it's ok or not.
Status: unknown
hurd-ldflags.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: Jeff?
Status: unknown
ia64-perf.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: ? I don't know it's ok or not.
Status: unknown
manual-texinfo4.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: I don't know why it's changed... Debian specific ?
Status: unknown
nscd-security-fix.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: It seems it's debian specific patch, but IMHO,
we should discussed with upstream author.
Status: unknown
sparc64-fixups.dpatch
2.2 CVS: not in
2.3 CVS: not in
Comment: I don't know about it. Why does elf/ldconfig.c have
architecture specific ifdef? Ben?
Status: unknown
-- gotom
Reply to: