First of all, thanks to the release team for hanging in there, everyone for their works, and aba for the update. also sprach Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> [2004.12.20.1255 +0100]: > Since we don't regard introducing new base packages for sarge as an > option (due to debootstrap considerations), the shared libunwind library What considerations? debootstrap is extra, we can still extend the list of packages it installs. There are also still some important bugs that should probably be fixed. > had to be included in libgcc1 and libgcc's shlibs dependency had to be > tightened to reflect this change. The unwind patches have been The reason why we do not add new packages to stable or the now-frozen sarge base is because we do not want new code to enter without the scrutiny that testing brings. Sidetracking the introduction of libunwind into sarge by hacking it into libgcc1 to me is offending a rule by obeying it, namely: the new code will be in sarge, but not in a clean way because we do not allow to get new code into sarge. To get libunwind in there, add it as a package. Please do not add libunwind to libgcc, which will make bug tracking harder and might call for later problems. Anyway, this is about gcc3.4. Is that the sarge default compiler? I do not seem to remember such an announcement. If it is not, it should not be frozen so tightly, should it? Maybe all of this has already been discussed, then I would appreciate a summary of the arguments for the proposed procedure. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature