Re: glibc and UNACCEPTs
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:43:06AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> > Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
> > of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
> > it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just
> > as that library should've been frozen.
> I'm confused by this; it sounds as if what you're saying is that if an
> important package is about to be frozen, no uploads for it should
> happen. Doesn't that just mean that it already *is* frozen?
No, there have been incremental updates to glibc_2.3.6-* over the past
weeks fine-tuning things in preperation for the freeze.
In contrast, glibc_2.3.999.2-* is a whole new upstream version, dropping
support for 2.4 kernels. We definetely do not want to have this in
etch, and having to deal with glibc issues entirely through
testing-proposed-updates during the freeze would very annoying.