On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:37PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:52:52PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:59:58PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote: > > > Since I woundered why glibc doesn't move to testing I've looked at the > > > bugs if I could help. But than I woundered even more that these > > > licensing differences can't be solved within 85 days. Can these 2 > > > serious bugs somehow fixed, downgraded or closed? > > > > They are de facto downgraded by their set of tags. The real problem with > > glibc are other things, like those listed at the update_excuses page > > (excerpt available from glibc PTS web page). > Said excerpt lists two excuses: > 1. "taking my time about glibc", which I assume is a manual override, and > 2. glibc (source) is buggy! (2 > 0) > So it would seem that these bugs are not being disregarded (even if they are > not the only barrier). However, AIUI, this is mostly a cosmetic bug in the testing scripts (or a metabug in the way the bug is tagged). It's my impression that, if we get to the point where glibc really builds and works on all archs, the intention is to ignore these bugs as pre-existing and move glibc into testing. This is somewhat based on hearsay, but it also jives with my understanding of the testing process in general. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpdFnKU6ktSc.pgp
Description: PGP signature