Bug#187670: marked as done (different libc6 versions show up on different web pages)
Your message dated Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:13:36 -0800
with message-id <20030405171336.GB268@ftbfs.org>
and subject line Bug#187670: different libc6 versions show up on different web pages
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; 5 Apr 2003 02:07:32 +0000
>From jausten@tntech.edu Fri Apr 04 20:07:31 2003
Return-path: <jausten@tntech.edu>
Received: from raptor.tntech.edu [149.149.11.199]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 191d5f-0004mi-00; Fri, 04 Apr 2003 20:07:31 -0600
Received: from cerf [149.149.39.108] by raptor.tntech.edu with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.15) id AA5C74380190; Fri, 04 Apr 2003 20:07:24 -0600
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:07:24 -0600
From: Jeffrey Austen <jausten@tntech.edu>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: different libc6 versions show up on different web pages
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030404200724.A23309@cerf.ece.tntech.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.4
Content-Length: 371
Lines: 8
X-RBL-Warning: HELOBOGUS: Domain cerf returns a server failure for MX or A records.
X-Declude-Sender: jausten@tntech.edu [149.149.39.108]
X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail for spam.
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: HELOBOGUS, IPNOTINMX [6]
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SMTPD_IN_RCVD,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level: *
Package: www.debian.org
According to <http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/glibc.html> the version
of glibc, of which libc6 is a component, in testing is 2.3.1-16 but
according to
<http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=libc6&searchon=names&version=all&release=all>
the version of libc6 in testing is libc6 2.2.5-9.woody.3 which is not
the same.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 187670-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Apr 2003 17:12:41 +0000
>From kraai@lafn.org Sat Apr 05 11:12:40 2003
Return-path: <kraai@lafn.org>
Received: from host-66-81-199-246.rev.o1.com (catalunya) [66.81.199.246]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 191rDY-0002eb-00; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:12:40 -0600
Received: from kraai by catalunya with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 191rEi-0000Jm-00
for <187670-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 09:13:48 -0800
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:13:36 -0800
From: Matt Kraai <kraai@alumni.cmu.edu>
To: 187670-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#187670: different libc6 versions show up on different web pages
Message-ID: <20030405171336.GB268@ftbfs.org>
References: <[🔎] 20030404200724.A23309@cerf.ece.tntech.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20030404200724.A23309@cerf.ece.tntech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Matt Kraai <kraai@lafn.org>
Delivered-To: 187670-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:07:24PM -0600, Jeffrey Austen wrote:
> According to <http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/glibc.html> the version
> of glibc, of which libc6 is a component, in testing is 2.3.1-16 but
> according to
> <http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=libc6&searchon=names&version=all&release=all>
> the version of libc6 in testing is libc6 2.2.5-9.woody.3 which is not the
> same.
You must have caught the former before it updated; it now says
that the version in testing is 2.2.5-9.woody.3.
Matt
--
It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.
Reply to: