Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an
> "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be
> considering requiring there to be a glibc/gcc/binutils upstream for each
> port, so that we don't get the first sign of these bugs when the
> packages hit unstable.
What sort of q&a would upstream be doing that would help us out here? Can
the port teams do this kind of work themselves prior to packages hitting
unstable?
- David Nusinow
Reply to: