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

Re: glibc bugs



On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:26:44PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Said excerpt lists two excuses:
> > 1. "taking my time about glibc", which I assume is a manual override, and

Some of the uploads of glibc in the 2.3.1- series have been urgency=medium
or urgency=high; given that glibc has been having problems, I deemed
that the shorter periods the testing scripts would choose normally
(2 or 5 days) weren't enough.

> > 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).

The testing scripts don't use bug tags to work out the RC bugs that apply
to sarge; they use their guesstimate instead. Since these bugs weren't
filed when the last version was accepted into testing, it assumes they
didn't apply.

> 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.  

Nor "pre-existing" so much as "not truly RC" or similar. The Sun RPC
bug isn't particularly convincing, IMO, and the FDL bug needs to be
resolved more thoroughly (it applies to gdb and possibly gcc as well,
afaik) by actually talking with the FSF.

The scripts haven't been told about this yet to ensure they don't start
adding glibc to testing until both I and the glibc team are sure that
the current version is suitable for sarge.

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.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpYI9EEim0Xb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: