[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: glibc |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:13:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 07:17:51PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Done: <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=765>
> Is it correct that this was automatically assigned to
> <URL:mailto:gotom@debian.or.jp>? At least, I'm not aware of having
> changed anything.
>
> Thank you. Leave it as default, I think that is OK.
... and was resolved.
> I needed the attached patches to make it compile.
>
> Yeah, I knew about those two, been in my tree for ages and never got
> around to mailing them. Including some other fixes... Need to get
> unbusy, hmph.
Well, you finally did and they were applied on HEAD.
Shouldn't they get applied on glibc-2_3-branch as well or do you only
care to have HEAD compiling / running on GNU/Hurd?
Alfred, what are your "other fixes"? Anything important for me to know?
> Shall I open bugzilla requests for them? What's the policy for
> such tiny changes?
>
> My policy has always been to send the patch to libc-alpha. But from
> the looks, things have changed now. Roland, care to enlighten on how
> you should report bugs to glibc now?
It seems posting, waiting for some months and reposting suffices.
:-)
> and why aren't they noticed by other people?
>
> "They" don't compile or test glibc on GNU/Hurd.
"They" are surely missing something!
;-)
Regards,
Thomas
- Re: glibc, Thomas Schwinge, 2005/03/01
- Re: glibc,
Thomas Schwinge <=