[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Roxen2 (was: Packages not making it into testing)

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:42:08PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> >>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> As everyone know, I've been a little 'off line', and haven't had much time
> to fix my packages. Now I'm back, with a new version of Roxen2 (that fixes
> some of the bugs on it)...
> According to the bug report 'va_arg()' isn't legitimate in C...

va_arg() is, va_arg on a short isn't.

> ----- s n i p -----
> Fixing that (using a temporary int/uint to hold the va_arg before
> downcasting it to a short) seems to produce a binary, actually.
> ----- s n i p -----
> 'seems to produce', but does it work? Is this the 'correct' fix?

It's the correct fix for that problem. There may be other problems. I don't
know roxen, and I don't have a powerpc to test it on.

> <rant>
> Anthony, If you think it's so '*really* straightforward', then why
> the **** haven't you done so months ago!?!?!? I have numerous times
> asked for help on this!!!!!
> </rant>

Why haven't I done what? NMUed your package? Because I don't have a
powerpc nor do I know anything about roxen. Answered any of your requests
for help?  Because I haven't seen any. The bug report log for #81648 is
completely empty apart from the initial report, eg.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpscd9PGsLN5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: