Changes:
- new upstream snapshot from 2.14 branch
- actually fix DNS assertion issues instead of just reverting stuff
- fix an old dlcose issue (e.g. FS#25459)
The last patch has an interesting history including being committed and
then removed to glibc trunk without explanation... but essentially all
distros use it so I am happy including it.
Signoff both,
Allan
09-10-2011, 01:42 AM
Gaetan Bisson
glibc-2.14-6
[2011-09-09 07:20:01 +1000] Allan McRae:
> Time for a nice bug fix release...
>
> Changes:
> - new upstream snapshot from 2.14 branch
> - actually fix DNS assertion issues instead of just reverting stuff
> - fix an old dlcose issue (e.g. FS#25459)
>
> The last patch has an interesting history including being committed
> and then removed to glibc trunk without explanation... but
> essentially all distros use it so I am happy including it.
Signoff x86_64.
--
Gaetan
09-11-2011, 01:40 AM
Allan McRae
glibc-2.14-6
On 10/09/11 11:42, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2011-09-09 07:20:01 +1000] Allan McRae:
Time for a nice bug fix release...
Changes:
- new upstream snapshot from 2.14 branch
- actually fix DNS assertion issues instead of just reverting stuff
- fix an old dlcose issue (e.g. FS#25459)
The last patch has an interesting history including being committed
and then removed to glibc trunk without explanation... but
essentially all distros use it so I am happy including it.
Signoff x86_64.
Anyone for i686?
09-11-2011, 01:48 AM
Gaetan Bisson
glibc-2.14-6
[2011-09-11 11:40:33 +1000] Allan McRae:
> On 10/09/11 11:42, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> >[2011-09-09 07:20:01 +1000] Allan McRae:
> >>Time for a nice bug fix release...
> >>
> >>Changes:
> >> - new upstream snapshot from 2.14 branch
> >> - actually fix DNS assertion issues instead of just reverting stuff
> >> - fix an old dlcose issue (e.g. FS#25459)
> >>
> >>The last patch has an interesting history including being committed
> >>and then removed to glibc trunk without explanation... but
> >>essentially all distros use it so I am happy including it.
> >
> >Signoff x86_64.
>
> Anyone for i686?