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

Re: Patch to fix FTBFS of pvm on GNU/Hurd

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 11:50 +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > 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.

OK, point taken. One problem so far is how to write the patches to
please the DMs. The comments you get varies. Sometimes it is easier to
communicate with upstream. However, I don't know if there exists an
active upstream for this package. Looking at
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html and 
http://www.netlib.org/pvm3/RELEASE_NOTES.txt there seems to be a release
3.4.6 from 02/02/2009, however. BTW: I'll file a wishlist bug about the
latest upstream version separately.

Latest Debian maintainer packaging 3.4.5-12 was from June 02 2009. Since
then there has been two NMUs. Does not look like the DM is very active
any longer. 

> > 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 :-)

Yes, I know, but it is frustrating to see how much of the very good time
and effort people spend by writing patches, and then see them hanging in
the BTS forever. Do you have any good solution to propose?

I have had better experiences with upstream than DMs so far. But
packaging of the upstream versions does not seem to happen too fast
either, not even for sid and wheezy is still far away. Maybe I should
apply to be a DM myself or at least do the packaging and having a
supporting DM as uploader. 

Reply to: