Link loadbalance
Registre you free
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michel-de-cerqueira-96b20a233
-- Mensagem encaminhada --
De: *Andrey Rakhmatullin*
Data: domingo, 28 de maio de 2023
Assunto: Dynamic linker support for FPC.
Para: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
On Sun, May 28
to properly link with libc.so for any implementation stuff.
ld.so contains it's own minimal malloc and friends implementation, which
is now incompatible with the one in libc.so itself. In the end this a
bug in FPC, which tries to link to ld.so, which is broken. See
https://sourceware.org/b
On Sun, 2023-05-28 at 20:23 +0200, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:53:51PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > One year ago, glibc 2.32
> 2.32 was released in 2020 though? Unless you mean some Debian-specific
> changes, happened in 2021, in which case please be more specific
On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:53:51PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> One year ago, glibc 2.32
2.32 was released in 2020 though? Unless you mean some Debian-specific
changes, happened in 2021, in which case please be more specific?
> introduced a change in the dynamic linker removing the functions
Dear All,
One year ago, glibc 2.32 introduced a change in the dynamic linker removing the
functions calloc/malloc/realloc/free.
This was motivated by the fact that libC is always in the way and provides these
functions.
However, this is not always true, because other compilers, FPC for instance
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-cran-fpc
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Christian Hennig
* URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=fpc
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: GNU R
Description : GNU R flexible
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Could you explain "lower bus factor" a bit more, please?
Don already explained this for the BTS, but in general, many if not
most of the services Debian provides are maintained by 0.5 person (one
busy person who already has lots of other respo
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Right, but I'd like to hear a bit more from Paul about this is
> relevant for the spam issue.
Currently only Blars and myself are doing anything with the spam in the
BTS. [And I have very limited time which I'm spending primarily on BTS
development and ke
Hello Christian,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 08:51:01PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 01/05/2017 08:27 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:24:32AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> >> The solution is simply a lower bus factor in all Debian services,
> >> including the BTS [...]
> >
>
On 01/05/2017 08:27 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:24:32AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> The solution is simply a lower bus factor in all Debian services,
>> including the BTS [...]
>
> Could you explain "lower bus factor" a bit more, please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_f
Hello Paul,
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:24:32AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> The solution is simply a lower bus factor in all Debian services,
> including the BTS [...]
Could you explain "lower bus factor" a bit more, please?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> What about requiring signed mail for closing a bug report?
We have sponsored maintainers, who theoretically could get by entirely
without an OpenPGP key. I don't know if any exist but I don't think
they should be blocked from -done. Also,
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 23:26 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:25:04PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > Banning those words in the Subject-line to our BTS would be too hars.
>
> ITYM "won't".
What about requiring signed mail for closing a bug report?
--
Cheers,
Abou Al
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:05AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Probably we don't have enough people looking at the spam reports. That
> > probably could be improved with better advertising, e.g. on
> > https://www.debian.org/intro/help
>
> Right now only the BTS admins can look at and act on spam
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Probably we don't have enough people looking at the spam reports. That
> probably could be improved with better advertising, e.g. on
> https://www.debian.org/intro/help
Right now only the BTS admins can look at and act on spam reports. I
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 12:29:35AM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I've reported abuse multiple times via the link at the foot of the bug page
> but
> nothing changed.
Probably we don't have enough people looking at the spam reports. That
probably could be improved with better advertising, e.g. o
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:25:04PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Banning those words in the Subject-line to our BTS would be too hars.
ITYM "won't".
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 12:29:35AM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Since last month I'm really stuck with a spammer closing this very same
> bug#472304 as soon as I reopen it.
>
> I've reported abuse multiple times via the link at the foot of the bug page
> but
> nothing changed.
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 00:29 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Since last month I'm really stuck with a spammer closing this very same
> bug#472304 as soon as I reopen it.
>
> I've reported abuse multiple times via the link at the foot of the bug page
> but
> nothing changed.
That r
Dear All,
Since last month I'm really stuck with a spammer closing this very same
bug#472304 as soon as I reopen it.
I've reported abuse multiple times via the link at the foot of the bug page but
nothing changed.
Can anyone help please?
bug#472304: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Torsten Werner wrote:
please have a look at
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413805>. The package
lazarus requires the sources of free pascal because it parses them.
The obvious solution is to create a binary package fpc-source shipping
the sources and
Hi,
please have a look at
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413805>. The package
lazarus requires the sources of free pascal because it parses them.
The obvious solution is to create a binary package fpc-source shipping
the sources and add a Depends or Recommends to lazarus
Hi Bill,
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:22 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >Hello Roland, I know nothing about fpc, but does it really need to
> >produce binaries statically linked with glibc ?
>
> It doesn't. Not all statically linked binaries are statically linked with
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:26:13PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > Hello Roland, I know nothing about fpc, but does it really need to
> > produce binaries statically linked with glibc ? I would expect to just
> > link statically with the units and dynamicall
Hi Bill,
> Hello Roland, I know nothing about fpc, but does it really need to
> produce binaries statically linked with glibc ? I would expect to just
> link statically with the units and dynamically with glibc. This would
> be much less a problem. (In particular, if security bugs
* Roland Stigge:
> Unfortunately, fpc in Debian produces statically linked binaries, due to
> the Pascal unit style library files. We currently don't have other
> packages in the archive that Build-Depend on fp-compiler (except fpc
> itself which indeed carries statically li
Hi,
maintaining m-tx, I would like to move from the p2c generated C sources
to the original upstream Pascal sources (better suited for patches,
development, design, etc.).
m-tx is written in a Turbo Pascal dialect that can only be compiled with
fpc (not gpc).
Unfortunately, fpc in Debian
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request an adopter for the fpc package.
I'd prefer that Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who's the Free
Pascal Project's main man on Debian packaging and who has provided me
with most of the infrastructure needed to build FPC on Debian, t
I have ITP'd FPC, the Free Pascal (Delphi/BP7 compatible) Compiler..
Unfortunately it's a BIG package and one I haven't had a chance to finish.
It doesn't quite buildpackage yet from what I have here because when I
left it I was in the middle of a major debian/rules cleanup. B
29 matches
Mail list logo
