On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:57:25PM +0000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: > [Just returned from my honeymoon, still feeling relaxed about the uclibc > package, which used to give me the shivers ;-) ]
Congrats. :) > Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 13:22 schrieb Andreas Barth: >>> It appears that uclibc itself is not in etch at this time, with a total of 4 >>> RC bugs open against it. Andi unblocked gibraltar-bootcd, but it's not >>> going to get anywhere without uclibc. >> Looking at the bugs, two show just that the package is neglected - they >> have patches for some time. > Very true... Maybe it's time to either include the uclibc source code in > mkinitrd-cd or move away from this library (although it's still the more > featureful of the "small" libs IMHO). >> The remaining ones: >> #336367: FTBFS: uclibc missing asm-i486/mman.h >> should be easy as well >> #261725: libuclibc0 - violates FHS >> as this is a cross-suite, I think the reasons for sarge-ignore are still >> valid enough to not really mind about this bug - but we need some >> perspective that it is actually resolved in time for lenny. > Does this mean that you will let uclibc into etch? I think it is still an > important package (and having mkinitrd-cd back would help the FAI team, as > I've been told). I think Andi meant that it should be possible for someone with an interest in the package to get it back into a releasable state -- not that the current package would be considered appropriate for inclusion in etch. I certainly don't intend to let uclibc back into etch in its current state; and probably not at all given the timeline, though Andi could choose to do so. -- 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]
