Re: Patch to fix FTBFS of pvm on GNU/Hurd
Hi,
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 18:56 +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > > On 15/04/11 00:10, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > > Svante Signell, le Thu 14 Apr 2011 23:18:32 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > And I wouldn't do #ifdef #else #endif, since strdup is portable.
> > > > Just use it unconditionally instead of strcpy.
> > >
> > > I chose not to use it unconditionally, then I would have to
> > > rewrite major parts of this program. It contains very old code,
> > > first entry 1993, latest revision 2004. Since then it seems to
> > > have accumulated a lot of patches, the debian count is 22 (23 with
> > > mine).
> >
> > I don't understand. Why would using strdup() unconditionally require
> > more rewrite than using it only for GNU?
>
> I mean that changing strcpy to strdup everywhere is a major rewrite of
> this old code.
Who talked about changing it *everywhere*?! Your patch changes it in
exactly one place -- only that you made that change conditional on
__GNU__, which seems unnecessary.
> And, anyways the Debian maintainer has not even acknowledged the
> patch, bug #622932 so why bother?
How do you know? Just because you didn't get a response yet, doesn't
mean the maintainer won't include it in the next upload.
Either way, this kind of attitude will certainly not motivate him to
care more :-)
-antrik-
Reply to: