[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Glibc status update

Here's your status update.  Please note the "**NEED HELP HERE**"

glibc CVS built fine for me on debussy.  Hopefully the CVS update will
fix it then and we'll have glibc compiled and up to date on all of our
arch's.  Since the sparc buildd appears not to be able to compile sparc,
I'll continue to produce and test that here.  I'm just arranging to get
an alpha and a mips so I can produce and test those debs here.

If people feel like shipping me other boxes as samples (How big *are*
s390's anyway?) then I'll make sure those are tested before an upload.

This CVS update also will fix the regex problems we've been seeing.  (I
can't find the bug number in my list)

**NEED HELP HERE** It apparently does *not* fix the php/imap bug.
(165699, 165718, 165719, 166414)

I need to check whether 169918 was fixed with the -5 patch.

The RM has indicated that we need to conflict with old packages for bugs
that aren't our fault.  It would be nice if there was policy on this
that clearly said "You must compensate for stupid programmers" But fine.
 I don't care enough about a conflicts item to argue it. (170385)

I'm working with upstream about the SunRPC licensing issue.  (171659)

**NEED HELP HERE** - I haven't looked at 171695.  

We need to reach consensus on how to handle the missing symbols (See my
earlier note that about stupid programmers) to close 163358.

Carlos said he needs another couple of days for 170507.

The s390 FTBFS (169919) I'm going to ask for more information on, since
the 'pending' tag was removed with a note saying that the fix isn't in
CVS yet.

The updated 171804 patch will be applied.

**NEED HELP HERE** debian/patches/glibc22-getaddrinfo.dpatch needs to be
updated for the CVS update.  Basically Hunk #5 needs to be updated.  I
also need to figure out how to either get this in CVS or get rid of it
from our patch tree.  Our IPv6 shouldn't function differently that every
other GNU/Linux distro.

Jeff Bailey

Reply to: