On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 02:06:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > - This undoes the changes Branden made back in October which altered the
> > SDL ABI.
>
> Joseph, I sincerely hope you're well aware that this has no hope of getting
> into the archive, let alone woody?
>
> ABI changes have been out of the picture since December.
I hope you bothered to read the thread to figure out WHY this needs to go
in. I haven't yet found any Debian package needing a recompile yet, but
that is a distinct possibility. I'm going to be monumentally pissed off
if Branden, Sam, and I went through all of that discussion to fix a Debian
RC bug and refix a couple others the best way possible for nothing.
Sam spent the greater part of the afternoon doing the grunt work to fix
the problem and I was up awake until sunrise trying to finish the packages
to make damned sure they were ready as soon as possible NOT to hold up the
freeze.
This isn't some haphazard change just because a couple of maintainers and
an upstream author felt inclined to suddenly break things. It's a quickly
planned and executed change which fixes non-Debian binaries in most cases
that they possibly could be fixed, and probably does not break one single
package in Debian. I say probably because I have not (yet) personally
tested them all.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> You're entitled to my opinion
The sourceforge approach is to place all of the projects in some bland
"open source surburbia", where all of the houses are alike, with only the
colors and minor style variations (which building plan was used for which
particular house) are allowed by the restrictive covenants and local
zoning laws. Sourceforege is the open source equivalent of the
subdivision in the movie "Edward Scissorhands".
-- Terry Lambert
Attachment:
pgpNLe3eK7Knp.pgp
Description: PGP signature