On 20/06/12 22:50, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> You still didn't address that in your reply.
>
Steven,
You seem to have three issues:
1.) feature based tests rather than platform based tests.
I totally get the desirability of this. It means new OS 's or
improvements to OS's get picked up automatically. My issue was that this
does not work in *this* case. Furthermore I was ignorant of certain
specifics - which is why I was widely circulating the NMU - and so
improperly cautious.
2.) a proper audit trail and making Hurd accountable for the actual issue
Again I totally get this.
3.) You seem to see it fit to willfully cause an FTBS on Hurd, to make a
point.
I don't get that. Any point you might make would be lost in all the
other Hurd FTBS's. Surely it is much better to do something positive.
So I have raised a bug: #678358 to address the underlying issue.
I will clone this bug to a follow up bug blocked by #678358.
I will check the source code of the other packages that I am aware might
have this issue and do the same if I find anything.
I will not delay any more with this NMU and my proposed patch will
* use #if defined(AF_LINK) && !defined(__GNU__) in both places as that
is as close to a feature check as we can get
* Have a comment explaining the issues in both the code and the patch
header.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fe2d3f2.3060...@periapt.co.uk
