Comment 14 for bug 393923

Right, but the problem has an easy workaround (including stdlib.h, which probably happens for half of the software out there anyway). But the actual bug report is quite clear, that's not what I asked. Right now it appears to be a very small benefit of fixing this in old releases (which few, if any developers still use).

An SRU should have potential regression information like:

 * The source package only builds a -dev package. There are no runtime programs which could potentially regress.
 * There are no shared libraries, so there is no potential for ABI breakage.
 * I verified that a reverse dependency of agg (e. g. gnash) is still building and working fine against the updated agg package.

I now checked the first two points myself (but that's usually the responsibility of the SRU proposer), which makes this a very low-probability regression issue. I didn't check the third one myself; but it can happen as part of the verification process.

So, I'm willing to accept the karmic package, if for nothing else than not having to argue against it any more (it's low-benefit/low-risk, so it doesn't hurt).