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

Re: Bug#500358: Fix found

2008/11/11, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>:
>> Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
>> these patches differ.
> You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two
> different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand.

Bastian, what should I do? Forward you all emails from the bug
tracker? Or copy-paste the contents explaning why these two patches
differ? I agree with you that it's a bit hard to follow the bug
discussion, but this is probaly issue of the bug tracker, not mine. I
also had the same problem when I started to search a fix.

I don't want anything from you except from what you (the Debian Team)
declare as your target - a well-tested, safe and working distro. With
working X on SPARC. I did testing, writing the patch, again testing
and posting all the results to the bug tracker. My soul is clear. As a
programmer, I dream about such perfect users of my products. But what
I see now is DD's fetish in arguing and not fixing the bugs. It seems
to me that discussion "to fix or not to fix" became bigger than actual
discussion of thing related to the bug. And you don't even bother to
tell us why you made such decision. You simply tell us that patch is
not fine. No further discussion, no suggestion, no interest to the
problem. Leave it as it is. The Wall.

>>                       In short, the last patch is the first patch
>> merged with Gaudenz's patch which revert changes of SPARC PCI in
>> 2.6.26 which breaks xserver-xorg-video-ati package.
> The first patch is fine. The revert is not.

Well... The revert fixes X server's bug which exposed on 2.6.26 but
works fine on previous kernel. New X server doesn't suffer from it and
works on both pre-2.6.26 kernels and the new ones, but backporting
this fix to the lenny's X server is very complicated task, AFAIK. So
we see, that a well-written code works perfectly everywhere. And this
should point us to the statement, that the revert doesn't break
anything except buggy programs, like lenny's version of X. But buggy
programs which deals with PCI in userspace are rare animals. And most
of them, I think are not so important as X.

A good question why you should care for X's bugs while being a kernel
maintainer. But if religion doesn't allow you to include this patch
then go on. I think most users will be excited if they know that
during testing there was a fix for "getting this thing work", but some
maintainer saw that patch as "not fine enough". This will serve a good
service for the Debian reputation.


Reply to: