>>>>> Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> writes: > Michael Prokop a écrit : >> * Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> 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 switching to another branch >>> for packages they maintain? >> >> No. Though I think that for essential packages like libc it could be >> worth a public discussion. >>
> 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 (lsb, compatibility with other distros etc). Obviously the fact that the upload has happened means that the Debian libc team does not consider that a risk. Even so, I belive a announcement about the planned change to d-d and d-d-a would've been a good idea (as opposed to learning about it on slashdot). > Frankly there is far less difference between GLIBC 2.9 and EGLIBC 2.9 > than between GLIBC 2.9 and GLIBC 2.10. I guess the concern is not what's the difference today but rather what's the roadmap down the line. Given the EGLIBC position statement "EGLIBC strives to be source and binary compatible with GLIBC" this may not be a concern. Again, a posting to the mailing lists would've cleared the air. > I could also have just taken the EGLIBC patches and put them in > debian/patches, no one would have noticed. That's probably true :-). Ganesan -- Ganesan Rajagopal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
