On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:51:33 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> not really sure what you're referring to here. that bug is already fixed
> in latest glibc-2.14 ebuild.
I mean, no need to open a new bug, just continue in that security bug, because
the fixed version has never had stable keyword.
--
Ag
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:44:05 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:35:39 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there's one known bug (with a patch posted), so if you guys have anything
> > that'd block glibc-2.14 for stable, nows' the time to file the bugs (and
> > mark it a blocker of 370
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:35:39 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> there's one known bug (with a patch posted), so if you guys have anything
> that'd block glibc-2.14 for stable, nows' the time to file the bugs (and
> mark it a blocker of 370409).
> -mike
I'd say to proceed directly in 393477
--
Agostino S
there's one known bug (with a patch posted), so if you guys have anything
that'd block glibc-2.14 for stable, nows' the time to file the bugs (and mark
it a blocker of 370409).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
