David Rees wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM, George Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To have a build that breaks an application because the container is
violating security policy looking for a non-existent file is just not
acceptable.
In order for me to use this build I would have to install the patch, and
recompile to have a working installation. This is what I'm doing right now
to run 5.5.26.
I'm not a committer (or voter) either, but IMO, because this is not a
regression, it should not hold up the release, especially because the
release contains other potentially serious security fixes.
If this were a regression, I would agree with you.
I guess I'm not understanding how you use the term regression. 5.5.25
for sure did not have this problem.
5.5.26 introduced it, and 5.5.27 has it.
How do you mean regression?
--
George Sexton
MH Software, Inc.
Voice: +1 303 438 9585
URL: http://www.mhsoftware.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
