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 based on eglibc that is exaclty the same but with a changeset of patches > that are being tested by more people and reduce the burden of the > maintanership."
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." To those (such as myself) who do not know a great deal about the ins-and-outs of libc maintainership, who has never heard of eglibc before, saying that we're switching to an entirely different libc is like saying we're switching to an entirely different kernel or entirely different X: the truth might be that the change is actually very minor, but if you aren't familiar with what's going on then it is enough to set big alarm bells off in your head. > Imagine ever developer has to open a thread in -devel every time they > decide|need to apply a patch to their package. Oops, I think we have > discussed this already :D No, clearly. But perhaps an email for every Priority: required package or otherwise major-impact package which is rebasing to a different upstream, if only to say that "this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic". -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
