| 1 |
On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: |
| 4 |
> > > Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the |
| 5 |
> > > linux |
| 6 |
> > > headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to |
| 9 |
> > "fix" linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close to |
| 10 |
> > upstream as possible. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the real |
| 13 |
> bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an |
| 14 |
> unresponsive upstream? nice |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else. this package is |
| 17 |
going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing limits.h |
| 18 |
to whichever package's upstream would be useful too. |
| 19 |
-mike |
Archives