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

Re: RFH: Multiarch capable toolchain as release goal

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> writes:
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Ove Kaaven <ovek@arcticnet.no> writes:
>>>> The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
>>>> a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
>>>> thread is just their latest, last-ditch effort since nothing else
>>>> worked so far. But I could be wrong, I guess.
>>> You are right. The patch has been around for years and requests for any
>>> response to the patch have just been ignored.
>> According to the bug log the patch was not ready when the maintainer
>> wanted to apply it and nobody bothered to start an NMU process...

> What bug are you reading?
> Sat, 27 May 2006 10:16:36 +0200: initial report with patch
> Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:26 +0200: NMU attempt gets vetoed

Nope, this is only a patch with a mail subject 'Patch for pending NMU of

> Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:01:53 +0200: 2. maintainer misunderstands the patch
> Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:44:30 +0200: some discussion about the misunderstanding
> Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:58:28 +0200: patch update for the i386->i486 ABI change
> Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:12:48 +0200: prodding the maintainer for an reaction
> Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:43:16 +0100: first real reply by maintainer

Patch was not ready...

> Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:14:35 +0200: patch fix for issues raise by maintainer

Didn't look like the issue was settled as the mail of Aurélien on 03 Jul
was ending questioning the patch...

> Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:56:45 +0200: patch split into the ABI and multiarch parts
> An NMU was tried and it and all future NMU where vetoed by the maintainer.

I only see discussion about the misunderstanding of a patch and fixing
of the patch after the maintainer comment.

There was no mail asking if it was allright to NMU, nor a real NMU
attempt AFAICS...

> In summary:
> - 13 month from initial report to raising a minor issue that has no
>   negative effects on the functionality
> - 4 days to fix the issue

Not clear from the bug log that everything was right already...

> - 9 month without reaction and counting

9 month waiting instead of trying to resolve the issue...

Btw looks like a very colored summary to me...

If I want a feature to be included in a package which the maintainer is
not really interested in, I would make sure that my patch would be ready
to apply and/or make sure I tried to actually NMU...



PS: I would not mind having multiarch support myself...

Reply to: