| 1 |
On Tuesday 26 October 2010 12:11:50 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: |
| 5 |
> > > > Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the |
| 6 |
> > > > linux |
| 7 |
> > > > headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to |
| 10 |
> > > "fix" linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close |
| 11 |
> > > to upstream as possible. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the |
| 14 |
> > real bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an |
| 15 |
> > unresponsive upstream? nice |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I thought this was maintainer's job... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> this package is |
| 22 |
> going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing |
| 23 |
> limits.h to whichever package's upstream would be useful too. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm sorry, I'm used to push patches I, _at least_, believe to be correct. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In any case, there's nothing to argue on my side: you seem very well aware |
| 29 |
that because you're being lazy to fix the bugs and argue with upstream you are |
| 30 |
pushing stupid workarounds on others because said package happens to be widely |
| 31 |
used. Fortunately I never had to face such an issue, even though if I happen |
| 32 |
to, don't expect me to do anything else than forwarding the bug to the headers |
| 33 |
maintainers with a rant. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
A. |
Archives