Ben Collins wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 10:23:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:I'm a little concerned by the number of patches in the glibc packages. What do you think of the idea of requiring from here in that the description contain a note saying either (i) This is a backport from CVS or (ii) why this patch isn't included upstream and what the pathSounds good to me. Most of them are from current 2.2 CVS, or from 2.3 CVS.
Seconded.
BTW, after -13, I'll go through the current patches, mark them, and also update to current 2.2.5+ CVS.
Fine. BTW, some patches or bugs are already in upstream. I contacted to Ulrich yesterday when 2.2.6 would be released. The answer is "not decided yet, working 2.3 is more important". "update to current 2.2.5+ CVS" means after -13 glibc package stands on (a) the latest glibc-2-2-branch or (b) 2.3 CVS? I think in the first we choose (a) is better (well, tests are needed, but standing on 2002-01-17 is something old). That leads us not to include the patches pulling out from 2.2/2.3 cvs one by one. What do you think about it?