On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 06:48:23PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:41:02PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Given that these sparc-related problems are well-known and adressed, I > > don't really understand why a RC bug is filed, then. > > Given that this critcal bug was fixed over a month ago, I don't see > any excuse for continuing to distribute the known broken version.
The reason why the new busybox didn't get into testing was that it also required a new netcfg, and between those two the changes were very invasive for tc1. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
