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

Re: Test packages for libc6 2.1.91+cvs

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 11:35:09AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 3) The lpr package breaks with this. It is the only broken package I have
> >    encountered so far. This is NOT a bug in glibc, it is a bug in lpd for
> >    using __ivaliduser(), which is an INTERNAL glibc function, and not even
> >    documented. Thus, lpr is broken. According to the comments in the glibc
> >    source, lpr should be using ruserok() or iruserok(), and I have filed a
> >    bug to this affect, but judging by the bug reports already filed on
> >    lpr, I don't think it will get fixed. I WILL NOT hack around it in
> >    glibc. This is what happens when you use undocumented things, and
> >    especially when you have as crappy of code as there is in lpr. I looked
> >    at it in the hopes of fixing it...and well, I wont do that again.
> Well, as long as LPRNg works, who cares?  As you said, this is not the only
> lpd problem by far... the code is ugly and the bugs aren't getting fixed.

Many of the bugs reported are against the version in potato, and do not
appear in the woody version.  I've been unable to do any serious Debian
work due to school and work time constraints.  Now that I've got some
time, I plan to go through the bugs and get them sorted out.

> What will happen is pure natural selection. If lpr doesn't fix the libc6
> bug, it will have to lose its standard status (and become 'extra', or,
> should it not build from source anymore, get dropped from the distribution),
> and LPRNG will take its place.

As maintainer of lpr, I would certainly support such a change.  In the
past, when I asked if people still used lpr, I got a definite positive
response, so I think we should certainly try to keep it in the
distribution.  But I think 'extra' would be a much better place than


Attachment: pgpD1MZ0rgNca.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: