Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/mpfc/files: mpfc-1.3.7-INT_MAX.patch

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2010 12:11:50 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> > On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> > > Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
>> > > > Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the
>> > > > linux
>> > > > headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file...
>> > >
>> > > Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to
>> > > "fix" linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close
>> > > to upstream as possible.
>> >
>> > so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the
>> > real bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an
>> > unresponsive upstream? nice
>>
>> you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else.
>
> I thought this was maintainer's job...

the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the
field.  at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation
thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint.

>> this package is
>> going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing
>> limits.h to whichever package's upstream would be useful too.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm used to push patches I, _at least_, believe to be correct.
>
>
> In any case, there's nothing to argue on my side: you seem very well aware
> that because you're being lazy to fix the bugs and argue with upstream you are
> pushing stupid workarounds on others because said package happens to be widely
> used. Fortunately I never had to face such an issue, even though if I happen
> to, don't expect me to do anything else than forwarding the bug to the headers
> maintainers with a rant.

you might want to look up some history before making stupid accusations
-mike