What about Bugzilla 90036? Will that be solved at all? I think that too is a glibc glitch. If true, I wouldn't release erratta without ironing this. Many thanks and keep up the good work. On Äet, 2003-10-30 at 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'm looking for testers for RHL9 glibc errata candidate. > There are 31 new patches in it and it should fix > at least following bugzilla ids: > > 54697 83973 85994 86032 88409 88456 88978 89448 90002 > 90077 90301 90987 91567 97814 97828 98966 101261 101691 > 102709 103727 105348 107846 > > The packages are available from > ftp://people.redhat.com/jakub/glibc/errata/2.3.2-27.9.3/ > > Although the i686 -> i386 "upgrade" bug is fixed, > nevertheless check what glibc arch you have installed > and update the right packages (unless you want to check > i686 -> i386 "upgrade"): > if [ `rpm -q --qf '%{arch}\n' glibc` = i686 ]; then > rpm -Fvh {glibc,nptl-devel}-2.3.2-27.9.3.i686.rpm \ > {glibc-{profile,common,utils,debug,devel},nscd}-2.3.2-27.9.3.i386.rpm > else > rpm -Fvh {glibc{,-profile,-common,-utils,-debug,-devel},nscd}-2.3.2-27.9.3.i386.rpm > fi > > Please report any problems with it into bugzilla. > Thanks. > > Jakub -- Igor Nestorovic University of Belgrade Faculty of Economics http://jung.ekof.bg.ac.yu ICQ UIN 31079000
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
