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

Re: popen & pclose; How to report platform-specific bugs?

On Feb 19, Brian Warner wrote:
> kmargar@cc.uoa.gr (Konstantinos Margaritis) writes:
> > things went back to normal after I replaced with the old (2.91.58)
> > libstdc++.  I believe it has to do with the fact that the libc I'm using
> > (2.0.100-2) is not quite fully 2.1-compliant, and some symbols don't have
> > GLIBC2.1 versions. Of course, I maybe wrong...

I've uploaded a newer egcs to prevent the old libstdc++ definitions.

> I've seen similar problems with xpm4g. It seems that some packages are being
> built on system that has a glibc newer than anything available in a released
> package. Either that or I'm somehow missing a glibc upgrade (I have something
> called "libc6 2.0.100-2" installed: am I correct in believing that this is the
> most recent one available?).

Available, yes! The new official glibc-2.1 (2.0.100 was a pre release) is not yet
available for all. The reason is: we will wait for slink release. 

> I wouldn't expect to see a new libc6 package until after glibc-2.1 is fully
> released, but I wouldn't expect to see packages compiled against an unreleased
> libc either. Here's a more general question: how do I find out where these
> packages are coming from, to send the builder a note about the problem? (I'm
> new to Debian, so be gentle if I'm missing something really obvious). I know
> there is a "Maintainer:" field in `dpkg-deb --info xpm4g_4.5j-0.8.deb`, but I
> also know that this name may be the overall maintainer and not necessarily the
> person who built/uploaded the powerpc package. I can look at the latest entry
> in /usr/doc/xpm4g/changelog.Debian.gz, but is that changelog updated when a
> package is rebuilt without source changes on a new architecture? The .debs are
> signed somehow, right? Can I get at that signature? How do I find out who to
> notify?

xpm is fixed.  It had an old glibc-2.0 reference (popen@@GLIBC-2.0, ...). 
The reason for me to build all new uploads with the new glibc are these bad
references. It is better to do it now and not in three weeks and waiting then for
new uploads to get it fixed.

For 99% you can send me a notice.

> A note from Hartmut earlier suggests to me that many ppc packages may be
> autobuilt on a single machine. Is there a way to make sure that such a machine
> isn't building packages against an unreleased C library?

Sure :-) But he should build against the new libc.

Dont't panic!

Reply to: