| 1 |
On Saturday 12 November 2005 08:06, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:33:25PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Long answer: This is not a regression; you'll find the same problem in |
| 4 |
> > stable. It's an area where a slight error can break lots of things that |
| 5 |
> > are even slightly non-standard. This case where the bug is occurring is |
| 6 |
> > very non-standard and has not cropped up before (or at least hasn't been |
| 7 |
> > brought to anybody's attention) in the time since I (and you) have been |
| 8 |
> > with the project. Lastly, 2.3.5.200* is/was hard masked. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yah it's a corner case, and yah few people are potential bitten by it |
| 11 |
> right now- that said, the severity of being bitten by it is why this |
| 12 |
> needs be released. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The severity of being bitten by it isn't all that bad. Just run `ldconfig` and |
| 15 |
your back in business. Sure I would call the bug critical, but it's |
| 16 |
definitely not a blocker as there's an easy workaround. Furthermore, the |
| 17 |
circumstances under which it happens are known so it can be detected and |
| 18 |
users pre-warned. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Think about it, it's a cockup in our lib handling... an area that needs to |
| 21 |
> run pretty much perfect. A corner case being spotted, even if upstream did |
| 22 |
> something idiotic isn't particular acceptable in that chunk of code (imo). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And this is exactly why I don't like the idea of putting the patch into stable |
| 25 |
or into a version that's about to go stable. Sure the patch looks fine from |
| 26 |
where I'm sitting, but what if it creates another corner case that wasn't |
| 27 |
there before? There's no evidence that the patch won't introduce a cock-up in |
| 28 |
a more common corner case. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives