On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 04:54:29PM +0000, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 07:15:11AM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > Isn't it risky for partial upgrades from etch ? Shouldn't we wait for > > > lenny+1 to revert this ? > > > > I second that, please don't revert the patch until lenny+1. FWIW I > > believe the release team as a whole wanted the patch to be kept as well, > > but I'll let the other members correct me if I'm wrong. > > that's fine with me, as long as > > - the release team commits to maintain this patch > - the release team commits to check every bug report filed against > gcc with an upstream build and report back to the Debian BTS > - the release team shows that it is able to do so, and has done so > in the past. This will last up to the lenny release, and the toolchain is to be freezed next week. So I don't > IMO the current opinions "Isn't it risky", "I second that" only look > for the risk of running an unfixed kernel (if at all), not of shipping > a compiler diverting in code generation from upstream. I'm sure all of this is because of the CLD patch: 1,5M gcc-4.2-4.2.3/debian/patches > It has been pointed out that this bug is known to affect one package, > which is not needed for an upgrade. Are you aware of others? Yes, any package that runs memset/memmove in a signal handler. I happened to do that on software at work, those are not open source, but I would fail to see why we should not support them properly. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp_O7i6vjw4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature