On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:20:37PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > Ben Collins wrote: > >>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). > > I agree to that confusion should not be occured especially glibc > until upstream thinks it reaches release stability level. > OK, we are going to patch 'one by one model' until 2.2.6/2.2.90 > would be released with patch state marking you mentioned.
No, we are going to stay synced with glibc cvs's 2.2 branch. Check the debian/patches/glibc-cvs.dpatch file. That's going to be synced, in full. -- 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]
