On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:40:50AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:22:12PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:38:36AM +0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > > > This affects packages that use feholdexcept and > > > fesetenv, such as uic from QT. > > It's not a very long list. I hacked the following short script > > to search a local mirror I have access to. > > Output from this script is appended at the end: > > [...] > > Obviously there are some false positives (e.g. lg-issue40 and manpages). > Readding debian-hppa to the CC list. > This is a pretty short list... Would anyone object to binNMUs of the > effected packages on hppa, once a fixed glibc is uploaded? If the bug is in glibc, why would any of these packages need binNMUs? The only reason they would need rebuilt after a glibc bug fix would be if the glibc ABI changed in the process, and that would be Very Bad<tm>. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature