Re: Uploaded gdb 4.17-4.m68k.objc.threads.hwwp.fpu.gnat.3.1 (source sparc) to master
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 11:52:38PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:15:53 +0100, Christian Meder <meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de> said:
>
> > You shouldn't upload new source just to fix the compilation on
> > sparc.
>
> Why not? If source changes (patches) are required, there should be
> another source package. Read the developer's reference (2.6.0) for
> justification and guidelines on this.
>
> Ian Jackson, for instance, insists on this.
There are two different issues involved:
- I complained that the fix is a hack which probably isn't
architecture independent. Additionally it's a conflict in the glibc2.1
package which includes the kernel-header asm-sparc/ptrace.h and
the general sys/ptrace.h header and therefore shouldn't be fixed in the gdb
sources. So I guess I didn't state my point clearly enough ;-)
- after your reply I read the chapter on porter NMU's in the 2.6.0
developer's reference and, provided the chapter represents the
consensus on the topic, I guess I've got to change the severity of a
_lot_ of my bug reports to important. Additionally I've got to change
my habit of doing sourceless binary NMU's of patched versions and just
reporting the patch to the BTS. This will put a _lot_ of pressure on
slink as I'll introduce (guessing) some 50 - 70 important bugs and a
couple of patched source packages. Even without too much sleep I'll
need around two weeks to do the patched source uploads of the glibc2.1
fixes (assuming the maintainers won't do it themselves).
If that's the way to go I'll start immediately after getting an 'Go
ahead' so we'll get all sparc fixes in the source packages.
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
Reply to: