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

Re: Release critical bugs...



On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 03:06:47PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
 
> I've added many of these comments to the bugscan report.

Thank you very much. I CC'ed the mail to Wichert because on
http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/bugs/all.html he is mentioned as contact
person. I only got an answer from Virtual Wichert because he is on the Linux
Expo.

I think as we are interested in getting through with this as fast as possible
the contact person should be somebody who has the time to answer pretty fast.
Would it be possible to update that link until Wichert returns?

> > BTW - when will Karl M. Hegbloom be accepted as a maintainer? 
> 
> As far as I know he already is.  He even maintains 9 packages.

Hmm. Wasn't he working on xemacs21? He seems to be pretty active. I will ask
him if he knows what issues bbdb has with xemacs21.

> > > Package: communicator-smotif-461 (non-free).
> > > Maintainer: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
> > > [REMOVE] This package can be removed if it is not fixed.
> > >   42259 [TBF] If you open a menu and a cookie pops up, the browser hangs
> > Remove communicator? *arg* Anyway, there is not much we can do about it :(
> > Anyone contacted Netscape about this?
> 
> Well, there are other versions of communicator.  We all know Netscape
> crashes a lot, but if this bug is release-critical then this version
> must be pretty bad.

Every version I installed on potato crashed whenever I was asked for
authorization to access freshmeat.net - I had to use
http://user:pass@freshmeat.net/lounge to read my news...
I submitted a bug but what can poor Adam do about this? I wished Communicator
was GPLed :(

> > Hey, shouldn't we have kernel-image-2.0.37 instead?
> 
> Hmm, it may be better to remove all 2.0.x kernels.  We'll base potato
> on 2.2 after all.

I would formal object against this ;) Seriously, I have had a lot of problems
with 2.2.x and I think as long as the 2.0 series works correctly we should
provide it as a safe fall back.

Anyway, I don't this is the right forum for discussions on Linux kernel
development.

> The same people who need 2.0.36? :-)

*g*

cu
    Torsten

Attachment: pgpZBYTOhhUPc.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: