On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:49:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:39:41AM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote: > > An alternative that is less invasive to sarge would be to drop libblkid1 > > support from a t-p-u upload. > Well, the version of mount currently in testing doesn't seem to use > libblkid at all... :)
True, and badly phrased on my part. An alternative if we want to get the rest of the 2.12p fixes into sarge would be to drop libblkid1 use. A source of many issues, and divergence from upstream, was the hurd patch, which was dropped in 2.12l-1. Having that code, with it's bugs, in sarge would be painful. lamont -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
