On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 12:23:27PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > 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?
2.2.5+ means "2.2.5 + 2.2 CVS", otherwise it wouldn't be 2.2.anything, it would be 2.3-cvs. We wont mess with 2.3 until 2.2.90 is released (the first 2.3.0 beta release). -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
