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

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 Firstly I never said 2.0.29 is obsolete.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


2.  The bug is fixed.

Kevin Dalley

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: