>From: Eugene V. Lyubimkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > I have made no such claims. I am merely stating that this is a serious > > bug. Severe enough to seriously consider delaying the release. This is > > what the release team gets to decide, which is worse (neither option is > > good)? > Yes. So, If you claim this have to be fixed before Lenny, go ahead and ask > Debian release > team what they think about changes in internals of apt and additional > month(s) of testing. >
I thought that was the point of copy the messages to their list was. > It might be found that fixing it isn't anywhere near as bad > > as you thought. Even though it changes the API/ABI, if no one has ever > > touched that field, the impact on other packages will be zero. > Yes, it will change ABI and API. This will cause recompiling packages that > rely on apt > against new apt, and would cause breakage of some apt-dependent tools (such > as aptitude, > perl and python bindings). Another big pain for other developers. Adding a level of indirection isn't a very big change. Yes, it has effects all over the place, but 95% of those are pretty simple (can mostly be done with `sed`). The difficult part is change the allocator, which I presume is the portion you did? > > Perhaps > > the release team will decide it is worth delaying the release, in which > > case a head start in testing will be of great value. Perhaps some other > > issue will force a delay of the release, in which case the extra time > > might allow sufficient testing. > Perhaps. And perhaps not. > > My conclusion: please not force fixing this bug before Lenny until release > team agree to > change internals of apt at this stage. My point with the above is to keep working on it. Even if slight, there is a very small chance it might be possible to complete in time. As for combining bug reports, #474947 is distinct from the #380509, #413024, #429171, #431410 and #451526. None of those includes a segmentation violation. #474947 might get fixed simply because fixing the little core piece will prevent it from being tickled or the rewrite might just squash it; but I still think it is distinct. I also think #429173 should be separate from that grouping. Again, this one might never show up, if not for the MMap issue; but this issue is that locks are left behind on error, not the MMap issue. On the flip side, #474947 might be the same as #443564. The MMap issue shows up, followed by a segmentation violation. Similar fixes work, but that is due to aggrevation by the MMap issue, without that bug these might be clearly distinct. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP F6B23DE0 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 2477\___\_|_/DC21 03A0 5D61 985B <-PGP-> F2BE 6526 ABD2 F6B2\_|_/___/3DE0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]