Subject: Re: [jamie@audible.transient.net: Bug#74224: 3.1.8 in proposed-updates depends on unstable libc (alpha)]
From: Christopher C. Chimelis (chris@debian.org)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 05:15:02 PDT
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> No. There already is a distinct tag in the changelog and .changes
> file. Alpha is really the only architecture suffering from this
> problem, all the others handle this just fine.
Yeah, but we'll eventually run into problems wrt the new glibc/db setup if
this kind of practice continues. I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that
woody developers should mostly have their systems updated by now...or am I
wrong on this? If I am, perhaps that explains why some of the recent
uploaded source packages are failing to build on an updated woody box
(xkbsel, for example, which still is looking for /usr/include/db1/*).
What happened to the days of version numbering like "1.0.1-1potato" for
stable updates? Just curious...
> There are faure.debian.org and alpha.debian.nl for example.
I uploaded the new base-passwd package for woody only today. Once that is
installed, I'll build the one for potato.
C
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Thu Nov 02 2000 - 08:06:30 PST