Hi Peter
I'm pleased to hear that a new upstream maintainer for mouseemu has
appeared. The last I knew was that the original author was no longer
interested in mouseemu. but could you please, pretty please ( ;-) )
tell me the new URL. I can't find it anywhere in the mail...
I did not yet have time to look into the write_error.dpatch issue. But
thanks for brining it up. I will investigate.
Gaudenz
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:18:22PM +1000, Peter Moulder wrote:
> Package: mouseemu
> Version: 0.15-8
> Severity: normal
>
> [Re severity: "newer upstream" is very minor severity because
> the only thing it adds beyond Debian's 0.15-5 is a new upstream URL
> and maintainer. The "please resync" part is severity normal on the
> unverified assumption that the remaining diffs haven't yet been sent
> upstream as per Debian policy ยง4.3 or item 2 of the social contract.]
>
> There is a newer upstream version available, 0.16.
>
> My local Debian mirror doesn't have 0.15-5.diff.gz, but based on
> 0.15-6.diff.gz and debian/changelog, it looks like 0.16 is equal to
> Debian's 0.15-5 except for noting a new maintainer and new canonical
> download location.
>
>
> On the subject of resyncing with upstream:
> write_error.dpatch doesn't look right to me: if the
> `if (write(fd, buf, n) < n)' test was previously succeeding in such a
> way that `... <= 0' (the version introduced by write_error.dpatch)
> wouldn't succeed (i.e. if write_error.dpatch actually makes a difference
> to execution), then I believe the right thing to do is to loop until all
> of buf has been written: i.e. introduce a function such as (untested):
>
> static ssize_t write_all(int fd, void const *buf, size_t count)
> {
> while (count) {
> ssize_t w = write(fd, buf, count);
> if (w < 0) {
> if (errno == EINTR)
> continue;
> return -1;
> }
>
> count -= w;
> buf = (void const *)((char const *)buf + w);
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> and use `if (write_all(fd, &event, sizeof(event)) < 0) perror(...);'.
>
> (If OTOH write_error.dpatch is believed not to make a difference to
> execution, then I still think it is wrong: if in fact it turns out that
> there is a difference, then we want the perror to execute, to alert us
> to the fact that there is in fact a difference, in which case the
> write_all suggestion applies.)
>
> pjrm.
>
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: lenny/sid
> APT prefers testing
> APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
> Architecture: i386 (i686)
>
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
>
>
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
