Hi,
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> Yeah but if a bug is just a lot more present when LFS is enabled, but
> still present without, we might have it triggered in some day, where
> it'll be harder to correct it.
as I read it it could even be triggered when you'r
On Mit, 2010-07-07 at 14:41 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On 07/07/2010 14:31, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > What was the reason for adding --enable-largefile? Shouldn't we wait
> > until upstream enables it by default?
>
> The fact that 32 bit users might come to the 2/4 GB limit. I'm asking
On 07/07/2010 14:31, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> What was the reason for adding --enable-largefile? Shouldn't we wait
> until upstream enables it by default?
>
Btw, LFS is a release goal since at least etch.
--
Yves-Alexis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 07/07/2010 14:31, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2010-07-07 at 13:54 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> On 07/07/2010 12:21, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>>
>>> Overall, I think building evolution-data-server with --enable-largefile
>>> incurs
>>> too much risk for Evolution users at this point. Unle
On Mit, 2010-07-07 at 13:54 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On 07/07/2010 12:21, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > Overall, I think building evolution-data-server with --enable-largefile
> > incurs
> > too much risk for Evolution users at this point. Unless there was a very
> > compelling reason fo
On 07/07/2010 12:21, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Package: evolution-data-server
> Version: 2.30.2-1
> Severity: grave
>
>
> [ Severity grave to make sure this will be considered before the release ]
Wtf? If you want this considered, please give some help/time, raising
severity for the sake of raising
6 matches
Mail list logo
