On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:30:01PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package. > > Currently they are mainly done for security purposes -- but stable updates > should not be confined to only that. They should be done to keep the > system functional. > > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of > data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sources for one thing; and it > places an extra burden on the maintainer(s) (who know have to track > three different upgrade paths, etc.). > > It would be good to hear from the glibc maintainers if there are any > issues addressing bugs such as: 345479, 351049 with an update for > stable.
It's not us, but the stable maintainer, that you'd have to talk to; he has traditionally not been interested in these sorts of updates to stable as far as I know. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
