Re: Bug#261824: time's up
I did the "new upstream", so I can tell you that it was only a couple of
lines of code changes, and they were tested well before being put into the
I don't think it needs extensive testing.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:34:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/