Re: gibraltar-bootcd fixing FTFBS bug
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:57:25PM +0000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> [Just returned from my honeymoon, still feeling relaxed about the uclibc
> package, which used to give me the shivers ;-) ]
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 13:22 schrieb Andreas Barth:
>>> It appears that uclibc itself is not in etch at this time, with a total of 4
>>> RC bugs open against it. Andi unblocked gibraltar-bootcd, but it's not
>>> going to get anywhere without uclibc.
>> Looking at the bugs, two show just that the package is neglected - they
>> have patches for some time.
> Very true... Maybe it's time to either include the uclibc source code in
> mkinitrd-cd or move away from this library (although it's still the more
> featureful of the "small" libs IMHO).
>> The remaining ones:
>> #336367: FTBFS: uclibc missing asm-i486/mman.h
>> should be easy as well
>> #261725: libuclibc0 - violates FHS
>> as this is a cross-suite, I think the reasons for sarge-ignore are still
>> valid enough to not really mind about this bug - but we need some
>> perspective that it is actually resolved in time for lenny.
> Does this mean that you will let uclibc into etch? I think it is still an
> important package (and having mkinitrd-cd back would help the FAI team, as
> I've been told).
I think Andi meant that it should be possible for someone with an interest
in the package to get it back into a releasable state -- not that the
current package would be considered appropriate for inclusion in etch.
I certainly don't intend to let uclibc back into etch in its current state;
and probably not at all given the timeline, though Andi could choose to do
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.