reassign 184565 hurd thanks At Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:49:02 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:51:41PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > > > Well, there are a lot of reasons - one is to support them needs not > > > only glibc but also hurd design. glibc BTS is for glibc, not hurd. I > > > feel it's difficult to implement them with only glibc modification > > > from looking at the hurd lists archive. This is request for hurd > > > itself. > > then it might need reassigning, but this doesn't affect the severity > (note the lack of this feature breaks other packages)
OK, I reassign to hurd. Reassigning to hurd related core package is better approach to fix this issue. Note that there are some lacks of feature even on linux - like new posix functions or so. Such some functions need to implement into kernel in first. Hurd is not official release architecture - it can break other packages and it's not critical issue. > > I concur that this is wishlist - It's not the Debian glibc maintainers > > jobs to write hurd-i386 functionality (or any other ports functionality > > - linux included) > > the Debian glibc maintainers are volunteers who just fix what they like to > fix, but the bug is there for anyone to send a patch. the severity means > not any obligation or whatever. > > anyway, my bug is pretty noticeable as a wishlist in libc0.3's list with > only 4 entries, so i don't care much. hurd wishlist has only 2 entries (plus this), so we don't miss. Regards, -- gotom
