On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > At Tue, 21 May 2002 16:00:50 +0200, > Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > Subsequent releases where not done, because between having the Hurd code in > > CVS and the binary snaphots in Debian, there was little need to rubberstamp > > a particular version as 0.3 or whatever. > > From Hurd's point of view, that's true. But it is really bad for third > parties when referring to any particular implementation of the Hurd. I > don't say that Hurd should be released often. That's required when a > big user-visible change is made. > > Here is an example of what could happen if no release is made so long: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-grub%40gnu.org/msg05548.html > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=145673&repeatmerged=yes
Mmmh, yeah, I see your point. Grub is obviously one of few third party packages dependent on specific Hurd behaviour in its operation (well, at least in the default configuration file and documentation). > I'm sorry that my response is off-topic, but I cannot help saying > this, because Robert or Alfred didn't seem to try to fix the root > cause. Nor could they, although they didn't even reported it on bug-hurd@gnu.org, which they should have. I was completely unaware of that there was a patch to GRUB docs pending a release. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]