Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - patch
Bug #983597 [libqt5quick5] Segfault in libqt5quick5.so:
QQuickItemLayer::~QQuickItemLayer()
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #983597 to the same tags previously set
--
983597: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=983597
Debian Bug
Control: tag -1 - patch
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Did you actually check that it fixes the problem for you?
No, I included the patch more as a hint to the nature of the bug, not
as a fix, but I should have stated that more clearly.
Regards,
Dennis.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 983597 Segfault in libqt5quick5.so:
> QQuickItemLayer::~QQuickItemLayer()
Bug #983597 [libqt5quick5] [PATCH] Segfault in libqt5quick5.so:
QQuickItemLayer::~QQuickItemLayer()
Changed Bug title to 'Segfault in libqt5quick5.so:
QQuickItemL
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 -patch
Bug #983597 [libqt5quick5] [PATCH] Segfault in libqt5quick5.so:
QQuickItemLayer::~QQuickItemLayer()
Removed tag(s) patch.
--
983597: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=983597
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org wi
Control: tags -1 -patch
Hi Pino!
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Did you actually check that it fixes the problem for you?
> The thing is, in C++ (at least since C++98) the delete operator is
> defined to be a no-op for a null pointer, much like free() in C.
> Henc
Hi Dennis,
In data venerdì 26 febbraio 2021 22:48:43 CET, Dennis Filder ha scritto:
> If you decide to use the attached patch, please put the bugnumber in
> the Bug-Debian: field for me.
The patch you provided is the following:
--- qtdeclarative-opensource-src-5.15.2+dfsg/src/quick/items/qquicki
In data venerdì 5 marzo 2021 18:16:18 CET, Glenn Strauss ha scritto:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd argue that switching the FAM implementation across the
> > distribution _is_ a "transition", and as such it ought to have been
> > requested (i
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Personally, I'd argue that switching the FAM implementation across the
> distribution _is_ a "transition", and as such it ought to have been
> requested (if not even started) two months ago.
In July 2020, #966273 was filed: RFA: fam
Dear Glenn,
In data venerdì 5 marzo 2021 16:41:40 CET, Glenn Strauss ha scritto:
> In #981513, courier changed to use libgamin-dev, so
> kcoreaddons is now the *only* remaining package using FAM.
>
> As such, there is considerably more risk to doing nothing
> than there is to migrating to gamin.
In #981513, courier changed to use libgamin-dev, so
kcoreaddons is now the *only* remaining package using FAM.
As such, there is considerably more risk to doing nothing
than there is to migrating to gamin.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=510368
is over 12 years old. It's time t
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:54:58PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Glenn Strauss writes:
>
> > gamin provides libfam0.
> >
> > kcoreaddons should load just fine with libfam0 from gamin.
> >
> > I did the research in #510368 and #966273, reviewing the actual code
> > and confidentally
11 matches
Mail list logo
