Octavio Alvarez wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Which coreutils bug are we talking about here? > > The one that I found to be in eglibc (and not coreutils' timeout): the > 8-byte memory leak. This is not the same I mentioned earlier, but also > discovered via timeout.
Just to be clear then I take it from this that there aren't any examples of this from coreutils. It hasn't happened with coreutils package or coreutils upstream. > (Should I stop CC-ing 668573? This is getting off-topic.) If it is trying to justify having a dbg package and justifying the effort needed to create and maintain it and the machine resources to build it on all architectures then it is on topic. That is the point of the discussion. > > > Reporting the bug has turned pointless now; you know what > > > happens: incomplete debugging information makes it more difficult > > > for upstream. That's why if I report a bug without a full > > > backtrace, chances of the bug being disregarded as NEEDINFO raise > > > significantly. And upstream will just blame the reporter. > > > > I looked for your address in the upstream lists but didn't see it > > after a very brief search. Perhaps I missed something? > > No, I'm not part of upstream (eglibc nor coreutils). The question isn't whether you are part of upstream or not. You don't need to formally be part of the maintenance team to submit bug reports. Bug reports are welcomed from anyone. You were claiming that reports were being rejected due to lack of a full backtrace. This shocked us. I haven't ever seen such cases. That isn't how it works. We were asking for examples so that we could address the problem. That is the next step. Collect data. And being part of upstream means that we could make amends for any just grievance. But no examples have been provided. I think you are thinking of a different upstream group. Therefore that claim is completely unjustified for coreutils. It is unfair for you to complain that coreutils upstream rejects reports without a full backtrace when there aren't any cases that they have ever rejected a bug report due to lack of a downstream backtrace. As Mike commented, in 15 years I don't recall ever having seen such a case either. It doesn't happen. > But we digress. In breaf, what you are saying is: WONTFIX, is this > correct? So far in this thread we have been discussing the justification for a dbg package. And so far in the thread as far as I can read there has not been any justification for it. (Apart from the original bug submitter.) Without justification for it then I expect it will likely be that the dbg package won't happen. Mike Stone wrote: > But you're asking for a debug version of this package, and you > haven't yet shown why it is useful FOR THIS PACKAGE. > Just saying over and over again that it's needed for upstream isn't > helpful, as it simply isn't true (in my experience) for this code. Full agreement. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
