At Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:14 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:04:54AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:54:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Does that mean that there isn't going to be an attempt to get > > > current glibc 2.2.<smallnum> into testing, by fixing #155904? Are > > > you just going straight for the pre-2.3 track? > > > > Hmm. 155904 isn't a valid bug anymore - Apache's been recompiled to > > cope with this. I'll close it now. > > I'd been told that the plan was to have libc6 depend on libdb1-compat > for the next release, which was why I asked.
I still confuse that 'libc6 depends libdb1-compat' does not affect any system breakage. Is apache's recompilation enough for this issue, or not? -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
