Re: libc6_2.0.7r-3 considered harmful
> Philip Hands <email@example.com> writes:
> > How many people have been bitten by this since the bug was found ?
> > We should have been able to prevent this damage in some way --- even
> > if it means having no libc6 available for a couple of days, this
> > seems preferable to breaking people's systems when we could avoid
> > it.
> Well, in my mind, the real way to fix this sort of thing is by
> reworking our release engineering process. No packages should
> propogated into stable (or beta) unless it has been tested by X number
> of people, where X > 2. Testers are just users or developers who
> install the package on a supported platform (i.e., stable or frozen)
> and ensure that the pkg functions. Ideally we have regression testing
> for *everything*, but I think that's a pipe dream.
This would certainly limit the number of times this sort of thing could
happen, but it will still happen.
We need a way of dealing with it when it does.
Having a marvelous regression testing suit would still not help us deal with
a caustic package that slipped through the net.
For a half decent disaster recovery system, one needs to lay down guidelines
ahead of time, that allow for a timely response when the disaster happens.
still wondering when the bloody hell the libc6 fix is going to finally
make it into hamm. It's not there yet, and how many days is that ? :-(
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com