1 |
On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
3 |
> > On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote: |
4 |
> > > hwoarang 10/08/06 21:21:39 |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > Modified: ChangeLog |
7 |
> > > Added: mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild |
8 |
> > > Log: |
9 |
> > > Respect {C,LD}FLAGS when building shared library. Bug #308873 |
10 |
> > > (Portage version: 2.2_rc67/cvs/Linux x86_64) |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > While fixing bugs can't be bad and I thank you for doing it, I can see a |
13 |
> > couple of important quality problems in this commit: |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > - There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I have |
16 |
> > not seen anything on the upstream dev ml. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Thats because I didn't. I've fixed more than 40 bug wrt LDFLAGS. Do you |
19 |
> expect me to subscribe to 40 different ML and send them upstream? |
20 |
|
21 |
you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails you |
22 |
can use... |
23 |
|
24 |
> The |
25 |
> patch is there, the maintainer is CC on the bug. All he has to do it to |
26 |
> send this damn patch to upstream. |
27 |
|
28 |
I can use the same reasoning and ask: |
29 |
Why don't you do it in the first place if that's "all" ? |
30 |
|
31 |
> I only care about the QA status on tree. |
32 |
|
33 |
As I already said, that's good, but that's better achieved with long term |
34 |
fixes rather than quick hacks IMHO |
35 |
|
36 |
> Most of them just use my patches and |
37 |
> contact upstream themselves. If this doesn't apply for you just let me |
38 |
> know. |
39 |
|
40 |
Yes this doesn't apply to me because the most probable scenario will be this: |
41 |
I'll touch the package in a couple of months/years, do a review of the |
42 |
ebuild/patches, find out some patches need porting, waste time trying to |
43 |
figure out why it's there in the first place, see it's been there for ages and |
44 |
that the author didn't consider the fix good enough to upstream it, drop it. |
45 |
|
46 |
> > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc |
47 |
> > yourself on the bug. |
48 |
> > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the |
49 |
> > dupes too). |
50 |
> > - That way you'll be able to quickly fix (apparently, I didn't check) |
51 |
> > obvious mistakes [1]. |
52 |
> > - You'll have to do a rev. bump for *FLAGS respect, please also check if |
53 |
> > you can avoid it by doing a version bump instead. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Well not always. If something is on ~testing then I don't think I should |
56 |
> "spam" the tree with revbumps. Stable users are my first priority so |
57 |
> unless something is on stable branch, I fix it as it is. I don't want to |
58 |
> version bump anything because I don't want to mess with anyones |
59 |
> packages. |
60 |
|
61 |
You're messing much more with one's package with quick'n'dirty "fixes" than |
62 |
with a clean version bump with upstreamed patches... |
63 |
|
64 |
> I only do QA fixing. If you have problem touching your |
65 |
> packages just say it |
66 |
|
67 |
I don't have problems with anyone touching "my" packages (esp. when they're |
68 |
herds packages...); though when I'm not happy with the technical details I let |
69 |
it be known and _really_ appreciate when the comments are taken into account |
70 |
instead of aggressively discarded by trying to argue why it's not been perfect |
71 |
in the first place ;) |
72 |
|
73 |
A. |