Re: kernel-source package have serious bugs
Herbert Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Kevin Dalley wrote:
> > 2. kernel-source-2.0.30 does have these bugs fixed, both 2.0.27 and
> > 2.0.29 are buggy. Herbert Xu incorrectly closed the bug against
> > 2.0.27. Having a bug fixed in one set of source code does not fix the
> > bug in all sets of source code. As long as 27 and 29 are distributed,
> > they should have the bugs fixed. If these two distributions are truly
> > obsolete, then they should be removed from the distribution. I
> > believe that they are not obsolete. Different version of the kernel
> > source have different sets of bugs reported against different drivers.
> > I believe that 2.0.27 is a well-respected set of source code, though I
> > admit that I have trouble remembering which source code has which
> > problems.
> Firstly I never said 2.0.29 is obsolete. In fact, this has been fixed in
> 2.0.29-5 which is still in the Incoming directory on master (it's been there
> for weeks). And secondly as far as I am concerned there is no point in keeping
> 2.0.27 in bo since there has been no reported bugs introduced in the latter
> versions that are serious enough to require the presense of 2.0.27 in bo.
Wonderful. Perhaps we agree after all. If 2.0.29-5 fixes the bug,
then 2.0.29 doesn't need a bug reported against it. I will concede
that point. Can we agree that kernel-source-2.0.27 should have bug
6527 (Configure int() subroutine broken (or expr)) reported against it
1. It is removed from the bo distribution
2. The bug is fixed.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .