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

Bug#373930: marked as done (getcwd assertion failure on ia64)



Your message dated Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:58:05 +0100
with message-id <20070122135804.GA19043@amd64.aurel32.net>
and subject line getcwd assertion failure on ia64
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge3
Severity: important
Tags: patch fixed-upstream

Bob Proulx reports in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00091.html>
that CVS coreutils won't build on an ia64 machine due to an assertion
failure in the pwd-long test.  This stems from a bug in the
implementation of getcwd.  In
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00092.html>
Andreas Schwab mentions that the glibc bug has been fixed in current
CVS; see <http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2418>.

The actual patch to sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/getcwd.c, as installed, is
here.  Can you please backport this into Debian stable?  Thanks.

<http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/getcwd.c.diff?r1=1.23&r2=1.24&cvsroot=glibc>


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.3.6-4

Now that the BTS support version control, I am closing this bug for
testing/unstable, leaving it opened for stable.

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

--- End Message ---

Reply to: