Re: kernel-source package have serious bugs
Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au> 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 Firstly I never said 2.0.29 is obsolete.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
until either:
1. It is removed from the bo distribution
or
2. The bug is fixed.
--
Kevin Dalley
kevin@aimnet.com
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: