On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > I think you've missed a point here (all times converted to UTC): > > 2004-08-19 11:38: #266837 gets filed as a serious bug against rpvm. > 2004-08-19 21:26: Dirk reassigns #266837 to pvm. > 2004-08-19 21:30: I set #266837 to wishlist, to merge it with #266762. > > As #266837 was assigned to pvm at that point, I cannot see how I would be > tampering in someone else's packages.
Yes, I did miss that. My apologies. > > It's appropriate for 266762 to be wishlist, but that has no bearing > > on 266837. > > The entire discussion here is whether #266762 is wishlist or not. I claim it > is; the rpvm people claim it is serious. It's a serious bug for rpvm, it's a wishlist bug for pvm. > > I know this leaves rpvm in an awkward state. I'd suggest [for sarge] > > making it build statically against pvm (maybe with strict requirements on > > the associated installed version of pvm), and incorporating all the bulk > > that implies. Yes, this places a disproportionate storage requirement > > on rpvm, but this close to release I think stupid simple changes are > > better than more elegant but riskier changes. > > The problem is, this is not possible: rpvm _must_ be a shared library (as far > as I've understood, anyhow) to work, and a shared library _cannot_ link > against a static library (well, a non-PIC-compiled one, anyway) on > non-i386/arm. Understood. For now: rpvm hasn't been ported to those platforms. -- Raul
