On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:19:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:39:07AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 May 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > >> > >> >... glibc without patches can't work. > >> > >> Isn't this the best support for Joey's proposal? > >> A software which does not work without patches is IMHO buggy. > > > > Do you have a proposal for a remplacement of the glibc then? > > Why would you want to replace it? The proposal is about tracking the > required patches in the BTS. Not about removing them.
Because it was suggested by Andreas the glibc is buggy. > > And note we *do* forward patches we apply to the Debian Glibc, which is > > not always something pleasant to do, especially when it concerns > > "embedded crap" [1]: at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get > > insults. > > Wouldn't it be nice to have those attempts and insults archived for > other people to see? That way when something like the OpenSSL > catastrophe hits you you can point to the BTS and show what discussion > went on with upstream. That's already the case, those bugs are in upstream BTS. It's really easy to point to them. Also if the patch comes from a bug in the Debian BTS, we already use the forwarded tag to make the link between the Debian and upstream BTS. > > That's why I personally don't want another level of administrative task > > like proposed by Joey Hess, which won't improve things in that case. We > > already have hundreds of bugs to fix in the Debian Glibc package, I > > don't want to waste my time. > > I don't think tagging a bug is so much work. And for a team maintained We are not speaking about tagging a bug, but opening a second bug in *our* BTS. I already find that I am spending too much time fighting with bugzilla, I don't want to spend more time opening a second bug in our BTS (and later having to close it). > package it would make things more transparent for everyone. You > already need to coordinate sending patches upstream in some way. Why > not use the BTS? We already use the name of the patch (local-, submitted- and cvs-) to know the status of a given patch. This is even more productive than using the BTS for that, as you don't want to have to lookup the BTS each time you are looking at a patch Also there is no need to coordinate sending patch upstream. The one who add a non Debian specific (not local-) patch to our SVN should send it upstream. That's all. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
