Re: gcc 3.2 transition clarification
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:15:09PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 20:25, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > >File wishlist bugs against those packages which don't support
> > > > prelinking yet and perhaps the maintainers will update them. A
> > > Is this agreed by everybody? It's a *long* list.
> > IMO you could also wait another day after that gcc3.2 became standard.
> Why? A bug report is not a personal insult.
True, but surely you can give people a little while to get going before
filing over 6000 bugs? I don't think that this is a sensible use of the
bug tracking system, and unless something absolutely urgent is needed I
object to a mass-filing of this size. It doesn't sound as if there is
any particular need to hurry in this case: if there was, the bugs
wouldn't be wishlist after all.
(I'm assuming that we're talking about every package that depends on
libc6, and that very few have been compiled with gcc3.2 yet.
'grep-available -FDepends libc6 -nsPackage | wc -l' returns 6446 on my
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]