Re: debian/patches review
> 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
This one stays unless upstream merges it. With -Wall or -pedantic (can't
remember which) we get warnings from string2.h.
> db1-addon-enabler.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: not in
> 2.3 CVS: not in
> Comment: db1 addon enabling patch. keep applying it.
> Status: keep
Remove this now. We've ditched db1 support, and this patch can go.
> glibc2.2.6-nice.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: -
> 2.3 CVS: -
> Comment: It's already commented out. BenC?
> Status: already removed
Remove this.
> sparc64-got-fix.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: -
> 2.3 CVS: -
> Comment: It's already commented out. BenC?
> Status: already removed
this one aswell.
> 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
No, this is Debian specific. It's used for compatibility with older
glibc/kernels. Upstream wont merge it, and we can't get rid of it.
> 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
Upstrea wont take this either. Mark it debian-specific.
> 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
Arm porters claimed the need for this. Email them for testing.
> glibc22-hppa-pthreads.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: not in
> 2.3 CVS: not in
> Comment: ? Ben?
> Status: unknown
Require for hppa. Should be merged upstream.
> glibc22-hppa-rela.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: not in
> 2.3 CVS: not in
> Comment: ? Ben?
> Status: unknown
Same here.
> glibc22-nss-upgrade.dpatch
> 2.2 CVS: not in
> 2.3 CVS: not in
> Comment: ? Ben?
> Status: unknown
This sticks around so that upgrades will be easier to 2.3, etc. Keep it
around, and we'll go over it when the time comes.
> 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
This should be merged upstream, but I'm not sure they'll take it. If
not, mark it debian-specific.
> 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
Debian specific. Our texinfo stuff is different than some others for
some reason (maybe newer?).
> 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
This is Debian specific. It just defaults nscd.conf to disable host
cache and explains why. Nothing about that needs to go upstream.
> 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
This patch keeps us from having to add /lib64 and /usr/lib64 to
ld.so.conf. It needs to stay, just mark it Debian specific.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: