On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:33AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that
> > have a tendency to be buggy (glibc, for example).
> The new glibc has already stalled the progress into testing of a large
> number of packages, and the number of RC bugs still seems to be going up.
> How are we going to manage to produce a release in 6 months the face of this
> obstacle? The last time there was this sort of breakage, it took many
> months just to get glibc itself it sorted out.
Yup. The difference is that this time we have a Glibc maintenance team
that's able to work together effectively, has some experience with the
package, and has a better understanding how important it is to get it
fixed quickly.
It's certainly similar to other disasters of the past twelve months,
and it's something to keep an eye on, and to randomly submit useful
patches for, but we're in a substantially better position to handle it
this time around.
Besides, what fun would a release be if we didn't have key machines
crashing, and chaos in important packages?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpp2Int8w3eV.pgp
Description: PGP signature