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