On 01/06/2016 12:54 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > For example, policykit-1 FTBFSes on non-systemd architectures > (#798769) I'd also like to note that while you provided a patch, you didn't really provide much context for this - and left a lot of work to the maintainers when it comes to integrating that patch into the packaging. I did some digging and found that your bug was already fixed upstream (in fact, a backport of something from newer versions was the cause of the FTBFS, because the follow-up fixes were presumably overlooked). I've backported the two upstream patches that fix this (which amount to the same change that your patch does) and have added them with the proper metadata attached to them to the git packaging of the policykit package. I've attached the patch against the git packaging to your bugreport. In an ideal world, obviously just providing a patch should be more than sufficient, but if you have a package where the maintainers are obviously short on time, you're much more likely to get results if you put in a bit of extra effort and provide something they can simply apply to git (e.g. git am) without having to do all the additional work of figuring the things out that I've mentioned. And if there still is no reaction to that, NMU remains an option. Now you just need to add the proper changelog in addition to my diff. (I think it's really unfair for you to complain in the way you did, so I'm doing this to point out that you have not done all you could have done to get this fixed, because figuring out that it's fixed upstream, that it's probably better to backport the official upstream patches, adding all the appropriate metadata to the patches and putting them into the right position in the patch list to be consistent is a lot of work you didn't do and that the maintainers would have had to do had I not done it just now. Now of course I don't think it'd be reasonable to _expect_ this amount of work from everyone reporting bugs in packages - but if the maintainers of a package are short on time, doing this work for them will greatly help in getting things fixed, while bad-mouthing them on debian-devel definitely won't.) Regards, Christian (for reference) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798769
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature