Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:39:07AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 May 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > >... glibc without patches can't work.
> >
> > Isn't this the best support for Joey's proposal?
> > A software which does not work without patches is IMHO buggy.
>
> Do you have a proposal for a remplacement of the glibc then?
>
> And note we *do* forward patches we apply to the Debian Glibc, which is
> not always something pleasant to do, especially when it concerns
> "embedded crap" [1]: at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get
> insults.
>
> That's why I personally don't want another level of administrative task
> like proposed by Joey Hess, which won't improve things in that case. We
> already have hundreds of bugs to fix in the Debian Glibc package, I
> don't want to waste my time.
>
>
> > Despite the technical fact in this specific case it also forces divergences
> > between distributions - which is even worse.
> >
>
> Maybe it is worst, but it is actually a wish from upstream. Upstream
> Glibc maintainers also manage the RedHat/Fedora branch in the same CVS,
> and sometimes doesn't even bother to backport patches from this branch
> to the trunk.
Isn't Ulrich Drepper RH/Fedora glibc maintainer ?
Mike
Reply to: