Russell Coker wrote:
>
> This is already being done for some packages. Check the maintainer address
> on the gcc package for an example.
>
> The thing that determines this is whether there are multiple people who are
> skillful and willing to work.
>
> If you want to be the second developer for
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > Oh, and just to chime in on this little bit, I did not start maintaining
> > glibc until Aug 31, 2000 (my first changelog entry). So no, I have not
> > been sitting on this for 7 months. Get your facts straight.
>
> And just to chime in, I appreciate the huge effort an
On Thursday 04 January 2001 20:50, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > I'm sure that Ben will welcome your contributions towards maintaining the
> > libc6 package. All you have to do is read the list of bugs, solve some,
> > and send in patches.
>
> I'm not trying to bash Ben. He
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:20:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I've just reported what I had thought, some many many months ago,
> > to be a problem. Of course, the maintainer has not done anything
> > about this report for 7 months, and then he closes it like that.
> > Not good.
>
> Oh, and ju
Russell Coker wrote:
>
> I'm sure that Ben will welcome your contributions towards maintaining the
> libc6 package. All you have to do is read the list of bugs, solve some, and
> send in patches.
I'm not trying to bash Ben. He did a wonderful work in resolving many
bugs and generally keeping up-
On Thursday 04 January 2001 14:54, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Tim Bell wrote:
> > Now I'm sure Ben is plenty busy with libc6 and whatever else he does,
> > and I don't mean to blame him for this slipping through. But the
> > thought that bugs are getting closed without being fixed is worrying.
>
Tim Bell wrote:
>
> Now I'm sure Ben is plenty busy with libc6 and whatever else he does,
> and I don't mean to blame him for this slipping through. But the
> thought that bugs are getting closed without being fixed is worrying.
That's my point. A package like libc6 is burdensome. It would not b
* Nicolás Lichtmaier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> But the worrying thing is that this bug should have been tagged as "more
> info", and the originator should have been contacted to provide that info. I
> don't think that a maintainer should close a bug report if he doesn't
> understand it, or h
> When you start saying "docs", you need to be more specific.
But the worrying thing is that this bug should have been tagged as "more
info", and the originator should have been contacted to provide that info. I
don't think that a maintainer should close a bug report if he doesn't
understand it,
Now it's my unavoidable duty to find out what has caused me to file this
bug.
Thanks,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Oh, and just to chime in on this little bit, I did not start maintaining
> glibc until Aug 31, 2000 (my first changelog entry). So no, I have not
> been sitting on this for 7 months. Get your facts straight.
I'm really ashamed, Ben. Sorry, sorry, sorry. :{
--
Eray (exa) O
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> WHAT TO DO:
> - Get a clue
> - Read better
Roger that.
Getting a clue:
It looks like I was having a bad day; due to the nature of hack mode
I have done it incorrectly
Reading better:
Looks like I'm still having a bad day. If I can't strcmp then how
will I rightfully
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, you should feel lucky that even the non standard
> PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP is provided by the
> implementation, even though not present in ISO/IEC 9945-1
Yep, I know what NP means. My trouble was something else but I
had thought that it w
Ben Collins wrote:
>
>
> WOW. Go fucking figure. YOUR BUG REPORT says
>
> PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_INITIALIZER_NP
>
> while this info page shows
>
> PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP
>
argh. my first great mistake of the millenium. fuck me real hard.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
C
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Wanted to make an ass of yourself in public, eh?
Yep.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
>>"Eray" == Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eray> I'm sending this mail because libc maintainer seems to have closed
Eray> the bug I've issued without doing any investigation on his own.
Eray> Subject:
Eray> libc6-dev: PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_INITIALIZER_NP not d
On 03-Jan-01, 07:41 (CST), "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Palfrader wrote:
> >
> > Did you do this first?
>
> No. I'm sending it here because I want it to be seen.
Why not send it the package maintainer, who can actually do something
about it, rather than whining to us?
> I've just reported what I had thought, some many many months ago,
> to be a problem. Of course, the maintainer has not done anything
> about this report for 7 months, and then he closes it like that.
> Not good.
Oh, and just to chime in on this little bit, I did not start maintaining
glibc until
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:12:44AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
>
> Anyway, here is the _explanation_ for the bug report.
>
> There's a preprocessor symbol in posix threads. It's called
> PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_INITIALIZER_NP. I claim that it has not been
> defined although it is said to be def
Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> Did you do this first?
No. I'm sending it here because I want it to be seen.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Hi Eray!
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sending this mail because libc maintainer seems to have closed
> the bug I've issued without doing any investigation on his own.
| It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
| Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
|
| T
21 matches
Mail list logo
