Bug#155904: THIS IS NOT FIXED
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 10:15:49AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 09:49:12AM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> >
> > > Sending a message to control@ to close a bug with NO EXPLANATION
> > > sent to the submitter is not acceptable. In this case, until libc6
> > > depends on libdb1-compat so that upgrades from woody work correctly,
> > > the bug can't be closed. If you feel there is some reason that
> > > libc6 should not be supporting partial upgrades from woody (a
> > > definate change from Debian's usual policy in this manner), you can
> > > send an explanation, but I don't think anyone will find it
> > > sufficient.
> >
> > Sure, but that's a *different* bug. Which you're welcome to submit
> > (or just accept that it's been fixed in our CVS, and the next version
> > has the dependancy set).
> >
> > I do appologise for not cc:'ing the bug notifiying that I was closing
> > the bug because it wasn't current (apache has been upgraded and works
> > fine now).
>
> I completely disagree. This bug is critical; someone installing
> unstable libc6 on a woody system (which I do often! If you use pinning
> to get a new version of one package from unstable, you WILL get
> unstable's libc6 now!) will break their apache. That's not acceptable
> at all.
>
> Unless someone gives me a reason not to, I intend to upload a new libc6
> with libdb1-compat and the MIPS msq.h fix. I'll check for any other
> bug reports which should be addressed at the same time.
The other is the Alpha stxncpy bug, which I am currently investigating.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: