On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 01:40:55PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote: > >> The full set of Debian patches against cdrecord are: >> >> 02_cdrecord_default_conf.dpatch: >> Set up reasonable default values in the cdrecord config > >It is unreasonable to deviate from a standard OS independen default. >---> rejected > >> 06_dautipps.dpatch: >> Little patch to extend error information > >This patch causes incorrect output >---> rejected What, you're claiming extra output that may help a user diagnose a problem "incorrect"? >> 07_noadvertising.dpatch: >> Remove advertising for cdrecord-ProDVD. > >Replaces generally useful infomation by Debian advertising >---> rejected "generally useful infomation" being advertising for a non-free product. Yeah, whatever. <snip> >> 21_makefile_fix_for_kernel.dpatch: >> Fix problems with kernel include doing wrong things. > >Unneded at all at least if the Linux kernel include files are non-buggy. >In addition, the autoconf utility already tests for known Linux kernel bugs. >---> rejected All this patch removes is /usr/src/linux/include from the include search path. That's a standard thing to do - there's no guarantee at all that /usr/src/linux/include contains include files that match the current kernel. This is standard advice. <snip> >> 23_o_excl.dpatch: >> Open devices with O_EXCL to stop other programs from interrupting >> writes > >general rule: Fix the other programs that are broken >---> rejected If cdrecord needs exclusive access to a device, then it's up to cdrecord to ask for that exclusive access. That's a simple enough rule... <snip> >> 35_ultra_speed_media.dpatch: >> Simple bug fix for ultra high speed RW media detection > >This problem has been fixed in cdrecord more than a month before Debian >---> rejected In which release version, precisely? That patch was a backport of your fix to the previous cdrecord release, as forwarded to the Debian BTS by a user; it'll be dropped when we move forward to your latest release... >So you see: not a single patch is senseful. By your reckoning, clearly everybody else is _always_ wrong. That might explain why you get so few people attempting to help you develop cdrtools... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature