On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:37:11PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote: > 2008/11/9 Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on > >> why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the > >> initial severity. > > > > There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC. > > This is not a PC case where one can assemble some unique set of components > which > will not work together well.
Hmm, my Sparc got PCI-X and PCIe. Okay, I never tried to put a random card in it, but why should it not work? > SPARC is a traditionally brand > architecture. This case > affects Ultra 5 and may be several other workstation. So if something > doesn't function > on one box it doesn't function on a whole generation of boxes. I think this is > quite a big part of all Debian SPARC users. This still does not qualify for the severity "grave": | makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, It still runs. And the Sparc machines I use don't show such problems. > And if SPARC is qualified > for release > then this is definitely RC. It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches. > And do not hesitate to use common sense. Refusal of fixing the bug > should be made > only if you are afraid of breaking something else. This patch targets > only SPARC. It has > absolutely no influence on other archs, so it won't break anything > else even in the worst case. NMUing a properly maintained package without action from the CTTE is also a no-go. > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5769907ade8dda7002b304c03ef9e4ee5c1e0821 This is a different patch then http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=102;filename=sparc_fix_for_debian.patch;att=1;bug=500358 Bastian -- History tends to exaggerate. -- Col. Green, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
