On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > testing by others first). It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > severity 261824 important > > severity 267428 important > > thanks > > > > Time's up, folks; if no fix has been found yet for these bootloader bugs, > > they'll have to remain hardware-specific errata for sarge. They will no > > longer be allowed to block the release, since silo still works on the > > majority of sparc hardware. > > > > Someone should, however, document these problems for the install manual > > and/or d-i errata. > > > > If someone can determine one way or another whether the gcc-2.95 rebuild > > actually fixes the problem on Ultra5 for someone other than Geert, that > > would help me in deciding whether an NMU is warranted.
Description: Digital signature