On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:11:20AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > **Adding doko to the cc: list** > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:36:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > Should I upload [glibc 2.2.91] to experimental, or should I just > > > > post them in people.d.o/~jbailey/? > > > > For now I strongly suggest just keeping the packages private for > > > testing. Especially do not upload them to experimental. Having > > > them out for public consumption is a bad bad idea. > > > > Once Drepper releases 2.2.90, we can make packages based on that, > > > run it through its test suite for all arch's, and decide on when > > > to upload it to unstable. > > It just happened on about the timeframe I guess it was going to. =) > I'll be doing up the test version this weekend. > > So we run the compile and testsuites ourselves on all of the boxes, or > do we ask the porters to help us on this?
We can do it ourselves where possible. If we run into problems with a particular arch, then we can bother the porters. > > Seconded. Is there any advantage to coordinating this with the GCC > > 3.2 transition? > > I had been talking about this with Matthias Klose - I think yes, since > this glibc requires gcc 3.2. I want to take some time (again, this > weekend, I'm just back from vacation so am a little backlogged) to try > and write up a unified plan for a gcc/glibc transition. I do aswell. Glibc 2.3 will most certainly require using gcc-3.x, so we might aswell make it dist wide and coordinated. -- 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]
