Re: glibc bugs
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:50:38PM +0900, GOTO Masanori <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> -------------------\
| 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-/