[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#768876: unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14

Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> (2014-12-01):
> So, can someone please tell me what's wrong with this unblock request?

I did write in my first reply:

  “At this stage, I'd rather see the security fix only.”

> I can try to fix built-using generation adding gcc to the mix but I'm
> afraid to do that this late in the release cycle, especially after it
> required so many iterations to get the most important in this context
> part of built-using.  Note that this most important part - which
> prompted the original bug report wrt built-using - is here with proper
> value (it is glibc which had bug in several versions, producing buggy
> static binaries).

Since these versions are (AFAICT) history now, having complex b-depends
and/or b-conflicts looks like a thing we would like to avoid, which
leads us back to the quote above.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: