Bug#235730: marked as done (patch to full 64bit file support)
Your message dated Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:32:30 +0100
with message-id <20040308203230.GD5647@djpig.de>
and subject line removed
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)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Mar 2004 05:16:11 +0000
>From sherpya@netfarm.it Mon Mar 01 21:16:11 2004
Return-path: <sherpya@netfarm.it>
Received: from skin.netfarm.it (mail.netfarm.it) [151.1.32.181]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Ay2GJ-0004Qg-00; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:11 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.netfarm.it (Netfarm MailServer v1.2 [Powered by Postfix]) with ESMTP id 122155D4338
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:00:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.netfarm.it ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (flender [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with LMTP id 03786-07; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:00:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from flender.netfarm.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.netfarm.it (Netfarm MailServer v1.2 [Powered by Postfix]) with ESMTP
id 7F7145D4337; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:00:52 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0466575408=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gianluigi Tiesi <sherpya@netfarm.it>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: patch to full 64bit file support
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.49
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:00:52 +0100
Message-Id: <[🔎] 20040302050052.7F7145D4337@mail.netfarm.it>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS New (Debian) at mail.netfarm.it
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_01
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_01
X-Spam-Level:
This is a multi-part MIME message sent by reportbug.
--===============0466575408==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: taper
Version: 7.0pre-1-2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
I've added a patch to avoid 2gb limit using backup to file,
I dunno if this can break other code (it's only a define),
tomorrow I'll test it on a real tape.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.21
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages taper depends on:
ii debconf 1.4.11 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-11 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libncurses5 5.3.20030719-5 Shared libraries for terminal hand
-- debconf information excluded
--===============0466575408==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="taper.003.file64.diff"
diff -Nuar taper-7.0pre-1.orig/Makefile.common taper-7.0pre-1/Makefile.common
--- taper-7.0pre-1.orig/Makefile.common Tue Mar 2 05:27:39 2004
+++ taper-7.0pre-1/Makefile.common Tue Mar 2 05:28:11 2004
@@ -22,7 +22,8 @@
DEFINES0 = -DLINUX -D_GNU_SOURCE -Dlint # gcc acts like a lint with -Wall
DEFINES1 = -DTRIPLE_BUFFER # see above
-DEFINES2 = -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64
+#DEFINES2 = -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64
+DEFINES2 = -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
#DEFINES2 = -DTAPER_BIG_ENDIAN # uncomment if using big endian machine
#DEFINES3 = -DFIFO_PROBLEMS # uncomment if using libc5 and getting FIFO errors
--===============0466575408==--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 235730-done) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Mar 2004 20:32:43 +0000
>From frank@lichtenheld.de Mon Mar 08 12:32:43 2004
Return-path: <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B0RQZ-0003Ce-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:32:43 -0800
Received: from pd953086c.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.83.8.108] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1B0RQX-0008OV-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:32:41 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1B0RQN-0001bR-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:32:31 +0100
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:32:30 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
To: 108828-done@bugs.debian.org, 137690-done@bugs.debian.org,
148306-done@bugs.debian.org, 157926-done@bugs.debian.org,
235730-done@bugs.debian.org, 148670-done@bugs.debian.org,
68440-done@bugs.debian.org, 140419-done@bugs.debian.org,
7059-done@bugs.debian.org, 23146-done@bugs.debian.org,
25401-done@bugs.debian.org, 25433-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: removed
Message-ID: <20040308203230.GD5647@djpig.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Delivered-To: 235730-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_08
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_08
X-Spam-Level:
taper was removed from Debian unstable today. Closing it
all its bugs.
[Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:09:26 -0500] [ftpmaster: James Troup]
Removed the following packages from unstable:
taper | 7.0pre-1-2 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Closed bugs: 115960
------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; orphaned for years, no interest.
----------------------------------------------
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: