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

Re: Potential Mono removal from 32-bit big endian PowerPC in next upload




On 01/09/15 16:42, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:48:54AM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
>> If you can sign the CLA at https://cla.xamarin.com/ I can take care of
>> the patch process
> Well I looked at it and it would seem I can not.
>
> I am employed by someone, but they have nothing to do with me contributing
> patches to things in my spare time, and I don't care to spend any time
> trying to get my employer to sign anything saying they don't care about
> my spare time either.
>
> Some projects just like making it too hard to actually try and help out.
> I consider my patches so far all trivial.  I don't personally give a shit
> about mono (I have no use for it), I just like a challange, so fixing a
> few small bugs is fun.  I also hate to see packages get dropped from
> architectures in Debian.
>
> So at this point it seems that if they won't accept trivial little
> patches without a stupid agreement, then too bad.  Not worth my effort.
> I can submit stuff to the linux kernel without such stupidities.

I can get things in under a "trivial" exception. One patch is in, the
other is stuck in "please rewrite this" hell @
https://github.com/mono/referencesource/pull/16 - I'll try to get to it
when I have time, but I have a backlog of other tasks

> If someone has a problem with that, they can look at my patches on this
> mailing list, see what the problem and solution was, and then they can
> go fix it again themselves in pretty much the same way.  Not like I care
> if I get credit or not for such trivial fixes.
>
>>> Certainly getting the fixes in would be great, but I don't much care
>>> who puts them in.  I suspect the ppc64 would like to add those missing
>>> instructions too.
>> I'll point them out on the current ppc64 bug, once I have the commits to
>> point to
>>
>>> I am still curious about the last test suite failures (the hanging one
>>> and the other one I didn't look at yet, and the two that went away when
>>> the value was made smaller).
>> Feel free to keep investigating - I love bug fixes. But what we have is
>> good enough for now, certainly good enough for sid.
> It is certainly pretty good from the looks of it.

The bigger issue is, sadly as feared, the Debian PowerPC builder boxes
don't like it. It works on a Mac Mini I was given access to, but it's
not sustainable for me to build/sign all PowerPC builds manually.

https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mono&arch=powerpc&ver=4.0.4.1%2Bdfsg-1&stamp=1441629526&file=log

Any bright ideas from anyone else in the peanut gallery? It seems dumb
as hell to be to need to pull the package when it *does* work - just not
on the right computer for it to be considered "fine".

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: