I did the "new upstream", so I can tell you that it was only a couple of lines of code changes, and they were tested well before being put into the silo repo.
I don't think it needs extensive testing. On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:34:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > > testing by others first). > > It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given > that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing > first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether > or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > severity 261824 important > > > severity 267428 important > > > thanks > > > > > > Time's up, folks; if no fix has been found yet for these bootloader bugs, > > > they'll have to remain hardware-specific errata for sarge. They will no > > > longer be allowed to block the release, since silo still works on the > > > majority of sparc hardware. > > > > > > Someone should, however, document these problems for the install manual > > > and/or d-i errata. > > > > > > If someone can determine one way or another whether the gcc-2.95 rebuild > > > actually fixes the problem on Ultra5 for someone other than Geert, that > > > would help me in deciding whether an NMU is warranted. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
