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

Re: glibc bugs

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:50:38PM +0900, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> was heard to say:
> > 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.
> Well, such two excuses are old.  In addition, RC bug (#181493,
> #181494) is license issue, not program bug.  Jeff Bailey and me with
> upstream plan to fix it in future.
> The problem remains in debian-glibc is only libgcc-compat symbol issue
> (#179781 and something).  It's much stable (yes I know there are some
> bugs as "important", but anytime a program has a lot of bugs :-).

  If this is still a bug holding glibc out of testing, why did you close
it with a libc upload 10 days ago?

  It's very frustrating, as someone not part of the glibc group, that the
glibc bug page apparently doesn't reflect the true state of the package --
if you believe http://bugs.debian.org/src:glibc, the only things that need
to be fixed to release libc are licensing problems tagged "sarge,sid,woody".


/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
|            Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic            |
|            design flaw.  It has a tendency to bend at the knees.            |
|              -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_                              |
\-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/

Reply to: