Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:31:13AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >This sort of argument would be a lot more convincing if it came from
> >people who were doing something about unbreaking libc6.
> See, that's a symptom. There are a lot of people whose packages are held
> up (preventing them from getting any testing done for their own,
> valuable, work) but don't have the skills or obscure platform necessary
> to fix a given libc6 bug.
Eh? Bug 165358, critical, libc6: exim, fetchmail broken on i386. Bug
166967, critical, libc6: jabber broken on i386.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: