Re: Glibc 2.3
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:20AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> **Adding doko to the cc: list**
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:36:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > > > Should I upload [glibc 2.2.91] to experimental, or should I just
> > > > post them in people.d.o/~jbailey/?
>
> > > For now I strongly suggest just keeping the packages private for
> > > testing. Especially do not upload them to experimental. Having
> > > them out for public consumption is a bad bad idea.
>
> > > Once Drepper releases 2.2.90, we can make packages based on that,
> > > run it through its test suite for all arch's, and decide on when
> > > to upload it to unstable.
>
> It just happened on about the timeframe I guess it was going to. =)
> I'll be doing up the test version this weekend.
>
> So we run the compile and testsuites ourselves on all of the boxes, or
> do we ask the porters to help us on this?
We can do it ourselves where possible. If we run into problems with a
particular arch, then we can bother the porters.
> > Seconded. Is there any advantage to coordinating this with the GCC
> > 3.2 transition?
>
> I had been talking about this with Matthias Klose - I think yes, since
> this glibc requires gcc 3.2. I want to take some time (again, this
> weekend, I'm just back from vacation so am a little backlogged) to try
> and write up a unified plan for a gcc/glibc transition.
I do aswell. Glibc 2.3 will most certainly require using gcc-3.x, so we
might aswell make it dist wide and coordinated.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: