Hi Andi, Hi Steve, [Just returned from my honeymoon, still feeling relaxed about the uclibc package, which used to give me the shivers ;-) ] Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 13:22 schrieb Andreas Barth: > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [061228 13:16]: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:12:29PM +0000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 17:01 schrieb Andreas Barth: > > > > gibraltar-bootcd was removed in March from Etch - I don't think it would > > > > be appropriate to allow it now back in until there are *very* good > > > > reasons for it. > > > Yes, the reason was the FTBFS, where everybody agreed that it was > > > uclibc-toolchain's fault. So gibraltar-bootcd was kind of in waiting > > > position. The FAI project uses mkinitrd-cd, and they would need it back in > > > etch. Between March and now, basically only the FTBFS has been fixed (I'm > > > working on a major new version for unstable). > > > > It appears that uclibc itself is not in etch at this time, with a total of 4 > > RC bugs open against it. Andi unblocked gibraltar-bootcd, but it's not > > going to get anywhere without uclibc. > > Looking at the bugs, two show just that the package is neglected - they > have patches for some time. Very true... Maybe it's time to either include the uclibc source code in mkinitrd-cd or move away from this library (although it's still the more featureful of the "small" libs IMHO). > The remaining ones: > #336367: FTBFS: uclibc missing asm-i486/mman.h > should be easy as well > > #261725: libuclibc0 - violates FHS > as this is a cross-suite, I think the reasons for sarge-ignore are still > valid enough to not really mind about this bug - but we need some > perspective that it is actually resolved in time for lenny. Does this mean that you will let uclibc into etch? I think it is still an important package (and having mkinitrd-cd back would help the FAI team, as I've been told). Rene
Attachment:
pgpLrqwixfXwB.pgp
Description: PGP signature