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

Re: Several glibc problems...



On Mon, Nov 16, 1998 at 01:51:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
<snip>
> > Should we consider producing a release with a "development" kernel?

This is a big YES! Potato should be targeted for 2.2.x as soon as slink
is released, this DOES mean that until 2.2.x is released we will be
using 2.1.x kernels..
> 
> Preferably, we should have a 2.1.x kernel and pre2.1 glibc packaged for
> i386, but not released.  When 2.1 stabilizes  -  hopefully in December
> -  and 2.2 kernel is released (who knows when), we'd be ready.

Bzzt! Slink will not work fully on a 2.1.x+ kernel, there are a few
packages (chances are that there are more then we know) which need to be
recompiled (or worse) for 2.1.x+ kernels, and it was decided that trying
to hit for 2.2.x for slink would push release back by three months or
so....

HOWEVER, I say we should shoot for 2.1.x+ for potato, Linus is
unquestionably winding down for release, and there is a good chance we
will have 2.2.0 before 1999, and a re-targeting is NOT something we can
really do mid-stream..

The very worst which could happen is that we get ready to release potato
and we still don't have 2.2.0, in which case we select the most stable
2.1.x for us and cross our fingers..

<snip>
> On a vaguely related note, Dale, have you considered Joel Klecker's
> glibc-maint proposal?  Asking one man to shoulder the burden for all
> ports doesn't make a great deal of sense, IMO.

Hrrrrm, sounds good, we have it for boot-floppys, why not glibc?

Zephaniah E, Hull..
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
 PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E, Hull <warp@whitestar.soark.net>-GPG E65A7801
    Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys.
           CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.

Attachment: pgp7_PaTnCmJn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: