Re: Bug#377697: Clarification on upgrade order for etch, was: Re: rageircd ftbfs on alpha
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:18:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> in that thread saying it was ok to drop 2.4 support was from Moritz
> Muehlenhoff; but you also got feedback from Stephen Gran and Mark Brown,
> saying that a runtime check would be preferable.)
Is there a suitable 2.4 based test system accessible to developers
somewhere?
> > since upstream is not willing to integrate a runtime check in the short
> > term and I cannot support such an intrusive unofficial patch (which, BTW,
> > does not exist at all ATM).
> Why do you say that it would be intrusive? It looks to me like a simple
> change to support building more than one select interface at a time, and
> using the best one that works. If such a patch existed, would you consider
> applying it?
What reasons did upstream give for this decision? I've often found
people are much more flexible about this sort of thing when presented
with a patch but it sounds like there was a more fundamental objection
here.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Reply to: