Ben Collins wrote: > On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 10:23:50PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: >>On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: >>>I'm a little concerned by the number of patches in the glibc packages. >>>What do you think of the idea of requiring from here in that the >>>description contain a note saying either (i) This is a backport from >>>CVS or (ii) why this patch isn't included upstream and what the path >> >>Sounds good to me. Most of them are from current 2.2 CVS, or from 2.3 >>CVS.
Seconded. > BTW, after -13, I'll go through the current patches, mark them, and also > update to current 2.2.5+ CVS. Fine. BTW, some patches or bugs are already in upstream. I contacted to Ulrich yesterday when 2.2.6 would be released. The answer is "not decided yet, working 2.3 is more important". "update to current 2.2.5+ CVS" means after -13 glibc package stands on (a) the latest glibc-2-2-branch or (b) 2.3 CVS? I think in the first we choose (a) is better (well, tests are needed, but standing on 2002-01-17 is something old). That leads us not to include the patches pulling out from 2.2/2.3 cvs one by one. What do you think about it? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
