| 1 |
On 19 Apr 2016 08:15, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 01:41:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 19 Apr 2016 04:21, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Ühel kenal päeval, E, 18.04.2016 kell 12:38, kirjutas Mike Frysinger: |
| 5 |
> > > > On 16 Apr 2016 09:23, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > So why on earth are we applying a random patch that upstream is not |
| 7 |
> > > > > using |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > not everyone uses glibc, and glibc *is* moving in this |
| 10 |
> > > > direction. Gentoo |
| 11 |
> > > > is simply accelerating the change ... otherwise glibc will take |
| 12 |
> > > > longer to do the actual migration. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > You don't need to break everyone's ~arch for dubious glibc benefits, |
| 15 |
> > > which could be done by a p.masked version and a tinderbox run. |
| 16 |
> > > I am not your tinderbox dummy having to waste time on this to maintain |
| 17 |
> > > my own ~arch stuff. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > i waited until the known bugs died down. i don't have access to a |
| 20 |
> > tinderbox system myself. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Cut the nonsense. You clearly didn't even test that glibc version |
| 23 |
> on a single system. If you did, you'd notice the core system packages |
| 24 |
> failing to build. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
i know it's asking a lot of you, but you should refrain from making claims |
| 27 |
that not only do you obviously have no idea about but can also be trivially |
| 28 |
refuted. i run glibc versions starting before i commit them to the tree |
| 29 |
and build/test packages against it constantly. this box has built hundreds |
| 30 |
of packages and if you look at the git tree, i fixed a number of packages |
| 31 |
before anyone even saw the breakage. |
| 32 |
-mike |
Archives