<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: [Fwd: [Bug 68066] CIPE update to 1.5.4]
From: "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:40 +0100

The people at RedHat want more information before they'll upgrade to
1.5.4.  From what I know, 1.4 CIPE daemons and 1.5.4 ones talk to
eachother just fine.

Have fun (if at all possible),
-- 
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed.  -- Alexander Hamilton
-- Eric Hopper (hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org  
http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) 
--





To: 

eric-bugs,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org


Subject: 

[Bug 68066] CIPE update to 1.5.4


From: 

bugzilla,AT,redhat,DOT,com


Date: 

Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:45:47 -0500


Delivered-To: 

hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org


Delivered-To: 

eric-bugs,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org




Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68066


mharris,AT,redhat,DOT,com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
                 CC|                            |mharris,AT,redhat,DOT,com,
                   |                            |arjanv,AT,redhat,DOT,com,
                   |                            |laroche,AT,redhat,DOT,com




------- Additional Comments From mharris,AT,redhat,DOT,com  2003-03-05 06:47 
-------
I've asked a few people about this, and they believe that cipe 1.5.x
contains changes that break the ABI used in 1.4.  If this is true (which
I have not had a chance to verify), then it would mean clients using 1.4
which connect to a 1.5 server, or vice versa would be incompatible with
each other.

Perhaps we can investigate if the ABI is indeed broken or not with respect
to cipe 1.4 in the new version.  If this would be an incompatible change,
perhaps we can consider backporting bug fixes and improvements.

Do any of you know of specific improvements and/or features the new release
brings off hand?  If you could itemize some of the important things, it
might help prioritize investigation of what might be needed if we were to
consider a backport.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: "This is a digitally signed message part"


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]