1 |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:37:04PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote: |
5 |
> > > > hwoarang 10/08/06 21:21:39 |
6 |
> > > > |
7 |
> > > > Modified: ChangeLog |
8 |
> > > > Added: mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild |
9 |
> > > > Log: |
10 |
> > > > Respect {C,LD}FLAGS when building shared library. Bug #308873 |
11 |
> > > > (Portage version: 2.2_rc67/cvs/Linux x86_64) |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > While fixing bugs can't be bad and I thank you for doing it, I can see a |
14 |
> > > couple of important quality problems in this commit: |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > - There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I have |
17 |
> > > not seen anything on the upstream dev ml. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Thats because I didn't. I've fixed more than 40 bug wrt LDFLAGS. Do you |
20 |
> > expect me to subscribe to 40 different ML and send them upstream? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails you |
23 |
> can use... |
24 |
As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they |
25 |
follow all the bug progress after all. So according to you I should do all the |
26 |
work. Tempting |
27 |
> |
28 |
> > The |
29 |
> > patch is there, the maintainer is CC on the bug. All he has to do it to |
30 |
> > send this damn patch to upstream. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I can use the same reasoning and ask: |
33 |
> Why don't you do it in the first place if that's "all" ? |
34 |
Cause I cannot maintain all the tree myself |
35 |
> |
36 |
> > I only care about the QA status on tree. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> As I already said, that's good, but that's better achieved with long term |
39 |
> fixes rather than quick hacks IMHO |
40 |
> |
41 |
> > Most of them just use my patches and |
42 |
> > contact upstream themselves. If this doesn't apply for you just let me |
43 |
> > know. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Yes this doesn't apply to me because the most probable scenario will be this: |
46 |
> I'll touch the package in a couple of months/years, do a review of the |
47 |
> ebuild/patches, find out some patches need porting, waste time trying to |
48 |
> figure out why it's there in the first place, see it's been there for ages and |
49 |
> that the author didn't consider the fix good enough to upstream it, drop it. |
50 |
> |
51 |
Sure, the changelogs are there though. I am trying to always write down as many |
52 |
details as I can so the maintainer can easily track down changes. |
53 |
> > > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc |
54 |
> > > yourself on the bug. |
55 |
> > > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the |
56 |
> > > dupes too). |
57 |
> > > - That way you'll be able to quickly fix (apparently, I didn't check) |
58 |
> > > obvious mistakes [1]. |
59 |
> > > - You'll have to do a rev. bump for *FLAGS respect, please also check if |
60 |
> > > you can avoid it by doing a version bump instead. |
61 |
> > |
62 |
> > Well not always. If something is on ~testing then I don't think I should |
63 |
> > "spam" the tree with revbumps. Stable users are my first priority so |
64 |
> > unless something is on stable branch, I fix it as it is. I don't want to |
65 |
> > version bump anything because I don't want to mess with anyones |
66 |
> > packages. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> You're messing much more with one's package with quick'n'dirty "fixes" than |
69 |
> with a clean version bump with upstreamed patches... |
70 |
Quick and dirty? Fair enough. Will try to contact upstream from now on. Seems |
71 |
like I will maintain the entire tree in the end. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> > I only do QA fixing. If you have problem touching your |
74 |
> > packages just say it |
75 |
> |
76 |
> I don't have problems with anyone touching "my" packages (esp. when they're |
77 |
> herds packages...); though when I'm not happy with the technical details I let |
78 |
> it be known and _really_ appreciate when the comments are taken into account |
79 |
> instead of aggressively discarded by trying to argue why it's not been perfect |
80 |
> in the first place ;) |
81 |
> |
82 |
> A. |
83 |
> |
84 |
I don't think what I do is perfect. But all this kind of judgement is |
85 |
quite demotivated I must say. |
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
89 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
90 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
91 |
Key ID: 441AC410 |
92 |
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |