I'm seeing a few rather vocal people who really just want to release
ASAP for whatever reason, most are willing to wait to get stable, but
they still 'just want to get it out'...
I'm also seeing a lot of FUD being spread about perl5.005, guys, we
/HAVE/ a plan, the maintainer is busy working on it
I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
> Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you have a program that depends o
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 02:11:42AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
> > Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
>
> It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
> drop-in replace 2.0 (unless
Adam> It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
Adam> drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you have a program that depends on
Adam> certain internal stuff which it shouldn't be using anyway).
Octave doesn't depend on internal stuff, but still fails when a glibc2.0
compiled ver
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
> > Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
>
> It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
> drop-in replace 2.0 (unl
6 matches
Mail list logo
