On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 02:32 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > In my testing, one known issue was that git on uclibc did (and still > > doesn't) work properly starting with git 1.8 - so I noted in the bug > > that this was the case, and to NOT stable it for arm. Unfortunately, > > someone else on the ARM team disregarded the note and stabled the new > > git, then the git maintainers dropped the old versions. Now on arm > > uclibc, git is entirely broken and unusable. > Ugh, this does suck. >
It does, though it's specific to arm uclibc, as it works fine on amd64/x86 uclibc. And unfortunately, it seems like this type of thing is what people are proposing we move towards. Instead of working but old, not having access to the software at all. I know it's not the norm, nor is it typical, but the chance of this happening does exist, and I can't see how anyone would say, well, that's just the chance that people should take, unless they've never been bitten by a bug like this. > Wasn't there a proposal years ago to include the libc in the keyword? > There may have been, I'm not sure that's really the right step either though.
