Bug#362959: Easy removals: B

2006-05-29 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 04:27, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : >> Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > tag 362959 = >> > tag 362959 + patch >> > thanks >> > >> > I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream >> > takes pointe

Bug#362959: Easy removals: B

2006-05-29 Thread Pierre Habouzit
Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 04:27, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > tag 362959 = > > tag 362959 + patch > > thanks > > > > I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream > > takes pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on > >

Bug#362959: Easy removals: B

2006-05-28 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Pierre HABOUZIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > tag 362959 = > tag 362959 + patch > thanks > > I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes > pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things > that are gints (32bits). Pointer should be put into in

Bug#362959: Easy removals: B

2006-05-28 Thread Pierre HABOUZIT
tag 362959 = tag 362959 + patch thanks I confirm. I have tracked that issue down, it's because upstream takes pointer on things that should be gsizes (aka 64 bits on amd64) on things that are gints (32bits). it had the nice effect to reset a loop counter to 0, hence the 100% CPU loop. atta

Bug#362959: Easy removals: B

2006-05-10 Thread Steve Langasek
severity 362959 grave thanks On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:12:26AM +0200, Isaac Clerencia wrote: > On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:48, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > # 362959 > > > remove bygfoot/1.9.4-1 > > > > Seems to be pretty unreproducible across most architectures, may not even > > be a bug anymore -