BEWARE: a problematic glibc made it to stable (F16)
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Oct 19 21:39:27 UTC 2011
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 23:36 +0200, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am 19.10.2011 23:09, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 15:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> What did you downgrade to ? AFAIK Several people had to
> >>> downgrade from -11 because of nsswitch issues ... seem glibc is
> >>> not in good shape :-(
> >> You get to pick your breakage. If glibc maintainers would kindly
> >> stop pulling random git snapshots into a pending stable release
> >> that would be nice, but then, I'd also like a solid gold toilet
> >> and that doesn't appear to be on the verge of showing up,
> >> either...
> > +1000
> > Why are we putting glibc git snapshots into Fedora 16, just days
> > before the final release?
> IMHO Rawhide should be the only place where version-control-snapshots
> of such an important component like glibc should be allowed.
> Maybe it would be better to let the value of positive karma depend on
> the severity of the package. That would mean that packages like glibc
> would require more positive karma for being pushed to stable than
> packages like gedit.
We haven't really had any karma problems with glibc. All the really bad
glibcs have been correctly rejected. 12.999 was accepted, but at least
its issues were only in compilation rather than at runtime.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel