Elliott Mitchell wrote: >> Yes. So, If you claim this have to be fixed before Lenny, go ahead and ask >> Debian release >> team what they think about changes in internals of apt and additional >> month(s) of testing. >> > > I thought that was the point of copy the messages to their list was. And, nevertheless, it was no answer yet. I assume you should ask them directly by mail to receive 'yes' or 'no' answer.
>> Yes, it will change ABI and API. This will cause recompiling packages that >> rely on apt >> against new apt, and would cause breakage of some apt-dependent tools (such >> as aptitude, >> perl and python bindings). Another big pain for other developers. > > Adding a level of indirection isn't a very big change. Yes, it has > effects all over the place, but 95% of those are pretty simple (can > mostly be done with `sed`). The difficult part is change the allocator, > which I presume is the portion you did? Rather simple, but in many places. Yes, it's exactly what I did. But this part may contain bugs too, as I cannot test it without all redirections implemented. >> My conclusion: please not force fixing this bug before Lenny until release >> team agree to >> change internals of apt at this stage. > > My point with the above is to keep working on it. Even if slight, there > is a very small chance it might be possible to complete in time. I hope apt in Squeeze will be significantly more bug-clear than in Lenny. But apt in Lenny is better than apt in Etch. And, again, this bug is important. But not so important to be forced to fix before Lenn release. > As for combining bug reports, #474947 is distinct from the #380509, > #413024, #429171, #431410 and #451526. None of those includes a [some investigations snipped] I assume this investigation will be also done post-Lenny. Thanks for triaging and attention. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
