Subject: Re: cvs 1.11.10 will be imported
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/13/2003 07:03:28
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:37:20AM +0900, email@example.com wrote:
> > >>> > > i'm not aware of the "interoperability issue". any pointers?
> > >>> > > (i have no problem using cvs 1.11.10 against cvs.netbsd.org)
> > >
> > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2003/12/05/0007.html
> > 1st problem on the email is caused by using NetBSD libz for compression
> > for cvs, not the zlib.c comes with cvs (the error message on the email
> > "incomplete dynamic bit lengths tree" appears in lib/libz, not in
> > gnu/dist/cvs).
> Actually, I believe the problem actually appeared early in 1.11, is a
> general version incompatibility in CVS when compression is in use, no matter
> what the zlib provider is, and that NetBSD zlib is simply providing a
> better diagnostic message. It may be fixed in 1.11.10; I know that I was
> sent a copy of the commit message for the fix in the CVS CVS tree...
as far as i see there's no real diff between 1.11.5 and 1.11.10 wrt
calls to zlib; i'm interested in seeing that commit message. anyways,
if there's fix to cvs-to-zlib call in between 1.11.5 to 1.11.10,
why do i have to be blamed publically for upgrading thirdparty software?
i'm fixing bugs and get blamed. it's not fair.