| 1 |
On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the |
| 4 |
> > linux |
| 5 |
> > headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to |
| 8 |
> "fix" linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close to |
| 9 |
> upstream as possible. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the real bug |
| 12 |
in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an unresponsive |
| 13 |
upstream? nice |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
A. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
PS: What to do if there is a clever upstream for another package refusing to |
| 19 |
add such a workaround ? Carry the patch over and over ? This sounds very |
| 20 |
selfish. |
Archives