Svante Signell, le Tue 05 Jun 2012 08:02:25 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 04:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> > > the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures
> > > does not have this problem. Ac
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 04:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> > the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures
> > does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing
> > info from glibc to the e
Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures
> does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing
> info from glibc to the exec server about $0.
>
> In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort
Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to
> glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010
Hello,
As discussed on IRC recently and on the bug-hurd mailing list
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2012-01/msg4.html
and the debian-hurd mailing list
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/01/msg1.html
(bug 654381, tests run under fakeroot and . not in PATH)
http://lists.deb
