Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Frankly there is far less difference between GLIBC 2.9 and EGLIBC 2.9
than between GLIBC 2.9 and GLIBC 2.10.
I could also have just taken the EGLIBC patches and put them in
debian/patches, no one would have noticed.
I'm sure your decision will either,
1. work
Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net writes:
Michael Prokop a écrit :
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:21:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
So I think the problem here is not that you made a technically bad
decision. It sounds like you made a good decision. It's how it was
communicated.
1) It didn't happen on any of the official Debian places that
developers read.
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:52:47AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net writes:
Should we also ask permission to everybody before uploading a new
version of the libc?
Of course, not :-). But this one sounds like a big change on the face of it
and raises
Ana Guerrero a écrit :
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:52:47AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net writes:
Should we also ask permission to everybody before uploading a new
version of the libc?
Of course, not :-). But this one sounds like a big change on the face of
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
not to see this on slashdot
or other website.
There is a German (not necessarily Linux related) news site who reported
immediately:
http://www.golem.de/0905/66930.html
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
Take Aurélien' personal post, remove all the personal comments that he could
write in his blog but not to d-d-a, and you will see it is not worth a mail
to d-d-a: hey, instead of package direclty Drepper's glibc, our glibc will
be
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jon Dowland
jon+debian-de...@alcopop.org wrote:
only to say that this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic.
How about defaulting to assume if the maintainer hasn't posted,
there's no reason to panic. Assume the maintainer knows better than
slashdot
Jon Dowland, 2009-05-07 11:51:43 +0100 :
I disagree, this would still warrant a post. Even if the impact is
insignificant, that is worth saying - we're doing this, and there's
no reason to worry.
I'll bite.
The gforge package in Debian has been switched from GForge to
FusionForge, which is
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jon Dowland
jon+debian-de...@alcopop.org wrote:
only to say that this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic.
How about defaulting to assume if the maintainer hasn't posted,
there's no reason to panic. Assume the maintainer
| Debian is switching to EGLIBC
|
| I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
| currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
| C Library (GLIBC).
| [...]
-- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
Where did this decission (and the discussion around
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a écrit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
Do all maintainers need your approval before switching to another branch
for packages they
Michael Prokop a écrit :
| Debian is switching to EGLIBC
|
| I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
| currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
| C Library (GLIBC).
| [...]
-- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
Where did
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
Do all maintainers need your
Michael Prokop a écrit :
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
Do all
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Michael Prokop m...@grml.org wrote:
No. Though I think that for essential packages like libc it could be
worth a public discussion.
In this case there wouldn't be any point of discussing it, I predict
the discussion would simply be yes, AOL, +1, do it already,
* Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Michael Prokop a écrit :
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Michael Prokop a écrit :
| Debian is switching to EGLIBC
|
| I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
| currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
| C Library (GLIBC).
| [...]
-- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
Hi,
I, for one, have heard just about enough of Hey developers, we're doing
$FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up from people.
I'd like a little bit more along the lines of Hey developers, we
really think $FOO is a good idea.
Hi all,
It is new to me that we should announce changes in packages on
debian-devel. I haven't seen that before for other (key) packages, while
it is very usual to see such announcements on planet.debian.org.
I have decided to add a blog entry after many people asking me on IRC
What is this
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:57:19 +0200 Julien BLACHE jbla...@debian.org
wrote:
How does hey developers, we're sick and tired of having to put up
with Uli, how about you find some new people to maintain glibc in
Debian sound like?
It sounds unnecessarily confrontational---it's daring people to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
think you would have met any
Julien BLACHE wrote:
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
Hi,
I, for one, have heard just about enough of Hey developers, we're doing
$FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up from people.
I'd like a little bit more along the lines of Hey developers, we
really think
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
think you would have met any opposition.
I
Quoting John Goerzen (jgoer...@complete.org):
So I think the problem here is not that you made a technically bad
decision. It sounds like you made a good decision. It's how it was
communicated.
I guess that, in some way, the glibc maintainers wanted to save us
from a probably very long and
John Goerzen wrote:
Julien BLACHE wrote:
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
Hi,
I, for one, have heard just about enough of Hey developers, we're doing
$FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up from people.
I'd like a little bit more along the lines of Hey
26 matches
Mail list logo
