On Saturday 02 August 2003 09:01, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Secondly, we need to signal to upstream to fix up _their_ act, too. If > we can't ship, for example the latest gcc because glibc isn't ISO C > compliant and working with gcc-3.3 (see other thread), then others need > to act: glibc maintainers (upstream). Why is it considered OK for other > commercial distributions to ship shoddy software?
A great part of the RC bugs preventing packages to migrate to testing are bugs on non-x86 architectures. Most commercial distributions only deal with x86... For instance, from what C.Cheney says, the problem with the glibc ISO C thing is for s390. This problem will appear to those distributing GNU/Linux for s390... which we can count on one finger... (if you only consider "big" distros) -- "I have sampled every language, french is my favorite. Fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'encul� de ta m�re. It's like wiping your ass with silk! I love it." -- The Merovingian, in the Matrix Reloaded
