On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 08:50:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It doesn't seem to have been built for alpha yet... is that a problem?
> > If not, I'll ask on debian-release to unblock it in advance. Or do
> > you want to do it?
> Alpha isn't kee
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't seem to have been built for alpha yet... is that a problem?
> If not, I'll ask on debian-release to unblock it in advance. Or do
> you want to do it?
Alpha isn't keeping up in general at the moment. I'll ask on
debian-release and let th
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Makes sense, thanks for explaining.
>
>> What's the next step now, do we wait for 5 days and then ask on
>> debian-release to push it into testing?
>
> We can ask them to unblock it in advance, and then it
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> What's the next step now, do we wait for 5 days and then ask on
> debian-release to push it into testing?
We can ask them to unblock it in advance, and then it will propagate
automatically when the five days ends
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sounds good to me. I'm still curious about urgency level semantics. Do
>> you know when urgency=medium is applicable? The links I found earlier
>> where not that informative, and mostly said that urgency
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'll let Russ decide. A fixed package should be ready to upload
>> anyway.
>
> Thankfully, severity doesn't matter for closed bugs, so we'll just upload
> the new package, I'll ask for a hint, and then we
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sounds good to me. I'm still curious about urgency level semantics. Do
> you know when urgency=medium is applicable? The links I found earlier
> where not that informative, and mostly said that urgency=high is for
> security bugs.
It's basically th
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Um, it's not; the package isn't "unusable" for amd64 users, it simply
> doesn't exist on amd64.
> That should be an 'important' bug AFAICS.
My bad. I thought that failing to support a supported arch on which it
should build and work was grave, but ha
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll let Russ decide. A fixed package should be ready to upload
> anyway.
Thankfully, severity doesn't matter for closed bugs, so we'll just upload
the new package, I'll ask for a hint, and then we won't worry about it.
:)
I'm in a meeting until 1pm
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:47:53AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Has this problem been seen on any archs other than amd64, where it
> >> fails the testsuite and therefore generates no binaries?
> > No.
> I just realized that I were wrong here, a
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:47:53AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> Has this problem been seen on any archs other than amd64, where it
>> >> fails the testsuite and therefore generates no binaries?
>
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:23:47AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > We should raise the severity of the bug to grave (better than serious,
>> > since it's a usability issue, not a policy violation) and uploa
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Has this problem been seen on any archs other than amd64, where it
>> fails the testsuite and therefore generates no binaries?
>
> No.
I just realized that I were wrong here, and that this may affect the
choice of severity level.
The problem applies
severity 404739 important
thanks
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:07:45AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Sorry, what's the rationale of this bug being marked as 'grave'?
> If I understand Russ correctly, I believe it would be that this
> problem makes the package unusable for amd64 users. That seem
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:23:47AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > We should raise the severity of the bug to grave (better than serious,
> > since it's a usability issue, not a policy violation) and upload a new
> > 0.0.18 version with the minimal patch. I think the release team will be
> > hap
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Uploading 0.0.19 to Debian at this time is surely a bad idea. Should we
>> raise the severity of this bug to serious, since it is FTBFS, and do
>> another upload of 0.0.18 plus the minimal patch that solve
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uploading 0.0.19 to Debian at this time is surely a bad idea. Should we
> raise the severity of this bug to serious, since it is FTBFS, and do
> another upload of 0.0.18 plus the minimal patch that solve the bug? Or
> is it not worth another upload?
Uploading 0.0.19 to Debian at this time is surely a bad idea. Should
we raise the severity of this bug to serious, since it is FTBFS, and
do another upload of 0.0.18 plus the minimal patch that solve the bug?
Or is it not worth another upload? Not supporting amd64 seems like an
unfortunate thing,
I just realized that fencepost.gnu.org is an amd64 box, running
ubuntu. I could reproduce the crash, with optimizations. It crashed
on de-referencing k5 in k5->ap, in context.c. Valgrind confirms this,
and there seems to be no prior valgrind errors. The code is:
rc = shishi_ap_rep_der_set (k
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, so it is actually Shishi that is crashing (although the bug could
> still be in gss). Does installing the 'shishi-dbg' package generate a
> better backtrace, with file:line information inside Shishi?
Alas, no. That's with shishi-dbg installed.
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi! I just noticed this bug that was filed for gss. I don't have
>> access to an amd64 machine. How can we debug this further? Should I
>> ask the bug submitter (intentionally not Cc:d) to debug this fu
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The same test passes when built with -g and no optimization flags. k5
> isn't NULL or anything obvious, so I'm not sure where the segfault is
> coming from.
Ah, I missed this part... hm, that's interesting. I suspected a silly
64-bit related problem, s
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm checking to see if I can duplicate the problem now.
Here's the backtrace:
Core was generated by `./krb5context'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 gss_krb5_init_sec_context (minor_status=0x7fff0f1c180c,
initiator_cred_h
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi! I just noticed this bug that was filed for gss. I don't have
> access to an amd64 machine. How can we debug this further? Should I
> ask the bug submitter (intentionally not Cc:d) to debug this further
> himself, or do we have a responsibility
Hi! I just noticed this bug that was filed for gss. I don't have
access to an amd64 machine. How can we debug this further? Should I
ask the bug submitter (intentionally not Cc:d) to debug this further
himself, or do we have a responsibility to make sure the package works
on amd64 without help
25 matches
Mail list logo
