Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:19:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <email@example.com> writes:
> > 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?
> Why would you want to replace it? The proposal is about tracking the
> required patches in the BTS. Not about removing them.
Because it was suggested by Andreas the glibc is buggy.
> > 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" : at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get
> > insults.
> Wouldn't it be nice to have those attempts and insults archived for
> other people to see? That way when something like the OpenSSL
> catastrophe hits you you can point to the BTS and show what discussion
> went on with upstream.
That's already the case, those bugs are in upstream BTS. It's really
easy to point to them. Also if the patch comes from a bug in the Debian
BTS, we already use the forwarded tag to make the link between the
Debian and upstream BTS.
> > 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.
> I don't think tagging a bug is so much work. And for a team maintained
We are not speaking about tagging a bug, but opening a second bug in
*our* BTS. I already find that I am spending too much time fighting with
bugzilla, I don't want to spend more time opening a second bug in our
BTS (and later having to close it).
> package it would make things more transparent for everyone. You
> already need to coordinate sending patches upstream in some way. Why
> not use the BTS?
We already use the name of the patch (local-, submitted- and cvs-) to
know the status of a given patch. This is even more productive than
using the BTS for that, as you don't want to have to lookup the BTS each
time you are looking at a patch
Also there is no need to coordinate sending patch upstream. The one who
add a non Debian specific (not local-) patch to our SVN should send it
upstream. That's all.
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net