On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:55:22PM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:27:51AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Quoting Ross Boylan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=apt says > > > trying to update apt from 0.6.46 to 0.6.46.1 (candidate is 2 days old) > > > * apt is only 2 days old. It must be 10 days old to go in. > > > * apt is in freeze; contact debian-release if update is needed
> > > The second point suggests the fix will not go into testing without some > > > help; the first point suggests it would take 10 days if handled > > > automatically. > > > It might be good to get this into testing sooner rather than later, > > > since it fixes an RC bug. > > Yes. The upload should probably have been high urgency. But maybe > > Michael had some reasons for using low. After all, we are in freeze > > but we still have time to make stuff migrate to testing. > The problem with automatic migration to etch is that we don't fully > know the effects of Bug#390189 yet. The root of the problem is > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29289 > The g++ version in etch is not affected by this g++ problem, the > version in sid is. This means that its probably not a good idea to > just let apt migrate to testing. We may have to build it with the > testing g++ and upload it to t-p-u :/ But lets hope that gcc upstream > has some more information about it. AIUI, the ABI incompatibility is unidirectional, and shipping a libapt-pkg built with the new g++-4.1 together with the old g++-4.1 shouldn't cause any problems. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]