On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:59:41PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:41:22PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote: > > It is tar which needs a workaround for sarge, I agree. But I believe > > dpkg must be fixed, too, so that sarge+1 can include a tar without this > > ugly workaround for dpkg. > If doogie can do an upload, or is happy for me to do one, we've still > got time to get this into sarge. tar certainly needs to be worked around for sarge (and ideally it should nul terminate the names permanently; there doesn't seem any cost to doing so); but better to have dpkg fixed in sarge than later: that's the only way a changed tar can be uploaded before sarge+1 is released. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature