1 |
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 02:32 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
2 |
> > In my testing, one known issue was that git on uclibc did (and still |
3 |
> > doesn't) work properly starting with git 1.8 - so I noted in the bug |
4 |
> > that this was the case, and to NOT stable it for arm. Unfortunately, |
5 |
> > someone else on the ARM team disregarded the note and stabled the new |
6 |
> > git, then the git maintainers dropped the old versions. Now on arm |
7 |
> > uclibc, git is entirely broken and unusable. |
8 |
> Ugh, this does suck. |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
It does, though it's specific to arm uclibc, as it works fine on |
12 |
amd64/x86 uclibc. And unfortunately, it seems like this type of thing |
13 |
is what people are proposing we move towards. Instead of working but |
14 |
old, not having access to the software at all. I know it's not the |
15 |
norm, nor is it typical, but the chance of this happening does exist, |
16 |
and I can't see how anyone would say, well, that's just the chance that |
17 |
people should take, unless they've never been bitten by a bug like this. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
> Wasn't there a proposal years ago to include the libc in the keyword? |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
There may have been, I'm not sure that's really the right step either |
24 |
though. |