Re: debian/patches
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 12:23:27PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> 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 path
> >>
> >>Sounds 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?
2.2.5+ means "2.2.5 + 2.2 CVS", otherwise it wouldn't be 2.2.anything,
it would be 2.3-cvs.
We wont mess with 2.3 until 2.2.90 is released (the first 2.3.0 beta
release).
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: