Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-amd64
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-amd64@g.o
From: Frank Peters <frank.peters@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Digest of gentoo-amd64@g.o issue 367 (13009-13035)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:56:22 -0400
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:46:38 -0400
DJ Cozatt <ygdrasil@...> wrote:

> 
> Is a discussion/flame about the report upstream qa messages.
> Help me out here guys and weigh in. (dons flame suit)
> 

To be honest, I am still quite surprised at the fact that distribution
maintainers even waste time fixing obvious bugs, let alone QA
issues.  If anything, outright bugs should be the responsibility
of the upstream developers and only of the upstream developers.
Yet there seems to be this many-tiered approach to reporting and
fixing bugs, with each distribution maintaining its own independent
set of reports and patches.  This makes little sense.  For example,
there are patches available on Gentoo (and other distributions as well)
that are needed to fix certain software bugs but these same patches
are not included in the original source code.  The way I see it,
there is much manpower being wasted by having all of this duplicated
effort.

Upstream developers should be very accommodating when it comes
to bug reports.  After all, the software is *their* creation and
their sense of pride -- if nothing else -- should impel them
to release the best possible code.

But upstream developers are known to sometimes be less than
enthusiastic about bugs.  I experienced an issue recently with
the login program and thought it best to make a report to
upstream only (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=600755).
After a long period with no significant response I decided to file
a report with Gentoo ( https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324419).
The Gentoo developers tackled the problem and found the source
of the error.  I reported these results back to upstream where
hopefully the bug will be fixed, but there should not have been
the need to approach both parties.

As far as QA issues, this should definitely be only the concern
of upstream developers.  The only way to improve code for every user
is to put pressure, in the form of constructive criticism, on upstream
to adhere to good coding practice.


> Further on the conversations wandered-to in the topic 'optimization'
> in the kernel config menu under the heading 'General Setup' lies
>         [*] Optimize trace point call sites 
> 

Is This option for debugging purposes?  If so then there is no
need for it with ordinary user builds.

Frank Peters



References:
Re: Digest of gentoo-amd64@g.o issue 367 (13009-13035)
-- DJ Cozatt
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Digest of gentoo-amd64@g.o issue 367 (13009-13035)
Next by thread:
Re: Digest of gentoo-amd64@g.o issue 367 (13009-13035)
Previous by date:
Re: Glibc Update Breaks Open/LibreOffice -- Can't Downgrade
Next by date:
Re: Digest of gentoo-amd64@g.o issue 367 (13009-13035)


Updated Jun 28, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-amd64 mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.