A Mennucc wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:09:58PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: >> I must therefore suggest that at the very least, the first part of this >> bug is too severe to allow to continue on to yet another release. Despite >> the pain now, that it is better to solve this issue and avoid yet more >> pain down the road. > > IMHO one way to decide if to accept a patch during the freeze is to > see how large and "important" it is. Does anybody have an example > patch, or a description of what code changes would be necessary? I had a look on this bug and, thus seems I have. I don't understand why Elliott ignored my previous 2 mails about it. So, I am repeating my humble look here. Reasons for not touching this bug anymore before Lenny release are:
- fix requires a big patch (small part of it was written by me, see #474947 thread); - this patch have to change internals of apt; - this patch can break apt API and ABI (don't checked); - this patch reduces apt speed (not serious though, as I see) on most operations with the cache; - this patch definitely requires thorough review and testing; I don't think this would be acceptable by release team. Elliott, reason for this bug is apt architecture. Do you think we can easily change architecture of the core package at freeze stage? -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
