Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?

To: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:46:16 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 87wt0q5wbb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20070405170323.GD3508@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> (Lennart Sorensen's message of "Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:03:23 -0400")
References: <[🔎] 20070405170323.GD3508@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>

* Lennart Sorensen:

> So does it seem fair to raise the severity to flag mysql as release
> critical for etch since it does affect any program that links in
> libmysql running on any x86 without cpuid support?

Document it in the release notes, please.  It's not worth risking
stability for the majority of users for this kind of bug.

Anyway, is there any particular reason why upstream (or you) don't use
the Intel-recommended way for detection of CPUID support?  A library
twiddling with SIGILL isn't a terribly good idea.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
  - From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
- Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
  - From: Sam Hocevar <sam@zoy.org>

References:
- MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
  - From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)

Prev by Date: Re: primary mirrors, debootstrap and d-i
Next by Date: Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
Previous by thread: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
Next by thread: Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread