Re: Building glibc 2.0.7 using hamm
On Sun, Mar 29, 1998 at 01:01:25PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> As the point release numbers get larger 1.9 gets more bug free. Why would
> moving to a more functional, less buggy release be a "good idea"?
Not really. That's like saying as we move further in the kernel 2.1.x
series, the kernel gets more bug free. Not true at all! The bug levels
fluctuate wildly in prerelease software -- that's why it's prerelease
software.
The point release numbers to 1.9 are _not_ bugfix patch levels, like they
are for 2.0.x kernels. They're interim releases, like for 2.1.x kernels.
CVS 1.9.26 has several new features, and new features usually lead to new
bugs -- that's just the way programming works :) Debian's code freeze is
supposed to be only for fixing bugs, never adding new features, because that
adds new bugs.
> The 1.9.26 version has been released, and was obtained by me from a public
> mirror site. It built right out of the box, with absolutely no problems.
It's still not the same as a real release. You can get 2.1.x Linux kernels
from public sites too -- that's just the bazaar development model at work.
And just because it worked for you with no problems, doesn't mean it has no
bugs. CVS 1.9.10+openbsd works for me with no problems (but I haven't tried
to retrieve libc6). Maybe you haven't tried the right CVS repository.
If the Debian code freeze was not in effect, and given that we're _already_
using a CVS interim release, I would say sure, upgrade it. But 1.9.26 very
definitely has new features (and rather nice ones, it would seem) and we are
in a code freeze, so I think it would be a bad idea to upgrade.
That said, I'm not the CVS maintainer and I don't make these decisions. I
just argue a lot.
Have fun,
Avery
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: