On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:43:06AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead > > of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed > > it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just > > as that library should've been frozen. > > I'm confused by this; it sounds as if what you're saying is that if an > important package is about to be frozen, no uploads for it should > happen. Doesn't that just mean that it already *is* frozen?
No, there have been incremental updates to glibc_2.3.6-* over the past weeks fine-tuning things in preperation for the freeze. In contrast, glibc_2.3.999.2-* is a whole new upstream version, dropping support for 2.4 kernels. We definetely do not want to have this in etch, and having to deal with glibc issues entirely through testing-proposed-updates during the freeze would very annoying. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
