Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#2573 closed task (wontfix)
glibc-2.11.1 branch updates
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.6 |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
From the 2.11 branch:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~robert/new/patches/glibc-2.11.1-update-1.diff
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~robert/new/patches/glibc-2.11.1-update-2.diff
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~robert/new/patches/glibc-2.11.1-update-3.diff
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~robert/new/patches/glibc-2.11.1-update-4.diff
I tried them, test suites pass. Looks good.
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | → 6.6 |
|---|
comment:2 by , 15 years ago
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
I only see the four patches right now, since "glibc 2.11.1 release":
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/release/2.11/master
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 15 years ago
I don't really kno wthe difference between that link and
http://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-cvs/2009-q4/
I can't find the relevant bugs that describe severity. Actually, I found the one on regcomp.c, but not the others.
comment:5 by , 15 years ago
Replying to bdubbs@…:
I don't really kno wthe difference between that link and
http://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-cvs/2009-q4/
I can't find the relevant bugs that describe severity. Actually, I found the one on regcomp.c, but not the others.
I'm pretty sure that link is for HEAD/master. The logs for 2010 go up to today. I'm guessing it shows up as 2.11 because they haven't tagged 2.12 yet.
comment:6 by , 15 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Agreed with Bruce. Glibc releases fairly often, and I don't see any critical fixes here.
I'm leaning against these patches. There are a couple of dozen patches since the 2.11.1 tag (Nov 30) even though the release was early Jan. I can't tell why these are particularly important. One patch fixes a problem that's been around since at least 2004. It doesn't seem to be critical.
There were 5 releases in 2009. I think svn can wait for the next release and they really don't appear to be critical for 6.6.
Leaving the final decision to Matt.