Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Frankly there is far less difference between GLIBC 2.9 and EGLIBC 2.9
> than between GLIBC 2.9 and GLIBC 2.10.
>
> I could also have just taken the EGLIBC patches and put them in
> debian/patches, no one would have noticed.
I'm sure your decision will either,
1. work per
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jon Dowland
wrote:
only to say that "this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic".
How about defaulting to assume if the maintainer hasn't posted,
there's no reason to panic. Assume the maintainer knows better than
slashdot or
Jon Dowland, 2009-05-07 11:51:43 +0100 :
> I disagree, this would still warrant a post. Even if the impact is
> insignificant, that is worth saying - "we're doing this, and there's
> no reason to worry."
I'll bite.
The "gforge" package in Debian has been switched from GForge to
FusionForge, wh
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jon Dowland
wrote:
> only to say that "this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic".
How about defaulting to assume if the maintainer hasn't posted,
there's no reason to panic. Assume the maintainer knows better than
slashdot or reddit about his/her own
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> Take Aurélien' personal post, remove all the personal comments that he could
> write in his blog but not to d-d-a, and you will see it is not worth a mail
> to d-d-a: "hey, instead of package direclty Drepper's glibc, our glibc will
>
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
not to see this on slashdot
or other website.
There is a German (not necessarily Linux related) news site who reported
"immediately":
http://www.golem.de/0905/66930.html
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Ana Guerrero a écrit :
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:52:47AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
>>> Aurelien Jarno writes:
>>> Should we also ask permission to everybody before uploading a new
>>> version of the libc?
>> Of course, not :-). But this one sounds like a big change on the face of it
>
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:52:47AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > Aurelien Jarno writes:
> > Should we also ask permission to everybody before uploading a new
> > version of the libc?
>
> Of course, not :-). But this one sounds like a big change on the face of it
> and raises concerns (l
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:21:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> So I think the problem here is not that you made a technically bad
> decision. It sounds like you made a good decision. It's how it was
> communicated.
>
> 1) It didn't happen on any of the official Debian places that
> developers re
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>>
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor o
John Goerzen wrote:
> Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
>>> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
>>> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers
Quoting John Goerzen (jgoer...@complete.org):
> So I think the problem here is not that you made a technically bad
> decision. It sounds like you made a good decision. It's how it was
> communicated.
I guess that, in some way, the glibc maintainers wanted to save us
from a probably very long an
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
>> laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
>> think you would have met any opposition.
>
> I wouldn't assume th
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
>> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
>> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers, we
>> really think $FOO i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
John Goerzen wrote:
> I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
> laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
> think you would have met any opposition.
I wouldn't
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:57:19 +0200 Julien BLACHE
wrote:
> How does "hey developers, we're sick and tired of having to put up
> with Uli, how about you find some new people to maintain glibc in
> Debian" sound like?
It sounds unnecessarily confrontational---it's daring people to disagree
with you
Hi all,
It is new to me that we should announce changes in packages on
debian-devel. I haven't seen that before for other (key) packages, while
it is very usual to see such announcements on planet.debian.org.
I have decided to add a blog entry after many people asking me on IRC
"What is this thin
John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers, we
> really think $FOO is a good idea. Here's why. What
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> | Debian is switching to EGLIBC
>> |
>> | I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
>> | currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
>> | C Library (G
* Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Michael Prokop wrote:
> No. Though I think that for essential packages like libc it could be
> worth a public discussion.
In this case there wouldn't be any point of discussing it, I predict
the discussion would simply be "yes", "AOL", "+1", "do it already",
"why
Michael Prokop a écrit :
> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>
>>> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
>>> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
>
>> Do all mai
* Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
>> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
> Do all maintainers need your approval before
Michael Prokop a écrit :
> | Debian is switching to EGLIBC
> |
> | I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
> | currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
> | C Library (GLIBC).
> | [...]
>
> -- http://blog.aurel32.
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a écrit :
> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
Do all maintainers need your approval before switching to another branch
for packages the
| Debian is switching to EGLIBC
|
| I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
| currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
| C Library (GLIBC).
| [...]
-- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it
26 matches
Mail list logo
