On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:25:56AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > Ben Collins wrote: > >>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. > > Ugh, I completely misunderstand what you said. > > I restate our plan: after -13, patches in debian/patches/* include > (1) Debian specific (2) only in 2.3 CVS (3) Hurd-i386 improvement > (I guess Jeff and hurd-machine are reincarnated :). > Such all patches marked why they are in debian/patches. > debian/patches/glibc-cvs.dpatch syncs the latest glibc-2-2-branch. > We effort to resolve our BTS bugs with sending to upstream CVS, surely. > Syncing 2.3 cvs is future work after 2.2.90 is released...
That's the hang of it. For -13: - Be sure it builds, and get it out the door so unstable/testing can be secure For -14: - Sync to glibc-2.2-cvs - Mark all debian/patches/, remove ones that the cvs sync kills - Run through as many bugs as possible - Pull some glibc-2.3 cvs patches where needed (generally for gcc-3.1) We wont even start to worry about glibc 2.3 yet. -- 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]
