Re: Samuel: Do you have permission to _enable_ the gccgo patches again?
Svante Signell, on lun. 26 mars 2018 19:50:58 +0200, wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 19:42 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on lun. 26 mars 2018 19:20:04 +0200, wrote:
> > >
> > > What is really wrong is that Matthias Klose removed the Hurd patches.
> > Sure, but see what he wrote in the changlog: he found the patches
> > "unmaintained", i.e. I guess he got an issue with it, and couldn't
> > afford spending the time to fix it, and thus just dropped them. That's
> > only normal for something that hasn't been upstreamed so far.
> Me being AFK for a month gives him reason to claim the the patches are un-
> maintined. Not nice :(
Well, a month is a long time indeed. I guess he needed to move forward,
so he dropped; no big deal.
> > > Adding them back is a piece of cake for you (or him), see #894080.
> > It's not: it means sorting out from your three mails what actually needs
> > checking in, understanding what you mean by
> > “
> > Finding the reverting commit and applying it
> > gcc.git-b12c2c48c2c6aa1db9e6c50f6b26330deeee9caf.patch gcc+gccgo builds
> > fine again.
> > ”
> > whether it's something that needs to be done on top of the patches,
> > scratching one's head whether “I will report the build status when the
> > latest version is built. (an eventually provide updated patches)” means
> > one should wait for that to happen etc.
> All this stuff is from earlier mails. Additionally the versions built with the
> patches were reported.
But we don't care about previous versions but the last version.
My point is: no, it's not obvious to just commit and forget. While it
*is* obvious to just fix what's currently there. If you don't see why
that commit was a move forward concerning Debian, please do check its
consequences and think about it.
> > Then eventually try to build the whole thing, possibly realize it
> > doesn't actually build, etc. etc. Not a piece of cake, really.
> As I wrote in that bug report, all needed patches are there. And as the bug
> report says: gcc-8 (8-8-20180321-1 and earlier) was successfully built.
But that's not the latest version, as you said it, even.