Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First it would have been nice to expose your opposition before, that > would have let us 50+ days to dig into the problem.
Well, it'd be nice if I had a pony too, but I don't. > Saying "it works on Ubuntu" is not a right answer. I didn't say it was the answer. > Debian and Ubuntu are different, some choices are not the same, and > it is precisely the case for bi-arch on amd64, where the location of > the bi-arch libraries is totally different. ITYM, "totally retarded in Debian's case", but I'll not quibble. > I don't have an Ubuntu machine so I can't do more work in that > direction. It seems it is the case for you, so I let you propose > another fix for this problem. Dude, that's not how this works. You want to make a change that deviates us from upstream, that means you get to justify the chane in a manner that's sufficient that I can both understand it and feel confident in proposing it upstream. > That's why I don't understand why you don't want the same for i386 > on amd64. I didn't say I didn't want it, I said I wanted it explained. >> And don't do that either. NMUs are not an excuse to get random pet >> bug fixes in. > > It's not a random pet bug. It's a porting bug that has been opened for > more than a year without any answer. I may not have answered it, but I was tracking it's progress upstream, and it's worth noting that the patch as originally posted was rejected there... If anyone had asked the status of the bug, that's what I would have told them. > I was wanting to do a porter NMU for amd64 and kfreebsd-i386. Sorry, but "porter NMU" doesn't give you free reign to ignore the maintainer. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
