On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 07:42:25PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:30:01 +1100, > Anand Kumria wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:42:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >>> I just realised that the timezone data in glibc is taken from an >>> upstream database (namely ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/). This data >>> sometimes changes, more rapidly than our release cycle (and than >>> any release cycle we can reasonable have). >> But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package. >> Currently they are mainly done for security purposes -- but stable >> updates should not be confined to only that. They should be done >> to keep the system functional. > Note that I was planning to separate timezone package from glibc > package (but I forgot it). It'll be available by the next release, > etch. To get things rolling, I have prepared an updated glibc for sarge with just the timezone data updated to the latest upstream upstream. It is at http://people.debian.org/~lmamane/glibc/ . Technically right now it is correct neither as a NMU (wrong version number, not mentioned in changelog), nor as MU (because I'm not a glibc maintainer). http://people.debian.org/~lmamane/glibc/glibc_22-sarge0.diff is the interdiff (the difference between what's now in sarge and what I've prepared). So: - glibc maintainers, would you approve of such an update to a point release of sarge? If yes, shall I make an NMU of it or shall you prepare a package (replace my "-- " line in the changelog by one of yours) and submit it to joey? - Martin, would you take such an update if approved or submitted by the glibc maintainers? Best Regards, -- Lionel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature