Please calm down. And perhaps spend a little time reading what I've spent the time trying to explain to you, and actually analysing what if anything is actually the problem your port really has which needs fixing.
Because none of these long diatribes you've sent contain anything about that which amounts to a bug report. You just keep insisting on something that would have changed nothing at all about this package or libopus, which you apparently mistook it for. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:33:49PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > I submitted the bug at that point, with the patch that I applied to > fix the issue locally (#744721); You claimed "arm64/aarch64, openrisc/or1k, ppc64el" were blocked on libogg. That was wrong for all but or1k, and since you filed that one only a month ago, and it's not even clear that anyone has ever run that on real hardware yet, it's bit of a stretch to claim the sky is falling because there hadn't been a new upload since then. It's also completely unrelated to this package which has been up to date for all of the new arches since before this bug was mistakenly filed the first time. > because if somebody uploaded new versions to the package without fixing > the issue, we would have to apply the local fix time and again. Why would 'somebody' do that, when there is clearly a bug open to note this needs to be done for the next upload? Which it was. > So even if using dh-autoreconf would not fix this particular issue, as > you claim, there's value in doing that and it might well become > recommended or mandatory soon. You might want to actually *read* what was written on -devel too rather than just absorbing its debating style, since I think you're overstating what has been suggested somewhat. I don't see any conflict with what I prefer for my packages with what some people are suggesting should be the default for people who don't care or don't know any better. So I don't see any reason to argue with them about it. And plenty not to if this would be the tone from some people. > That's how I arrived to opus-tools, being related to Xiph. Seeing bug > report #727481 to opus-tools, I assumed that Matthias Klose had > similar good reasons to the point explained in 1) (that he could not > build ppc64el) to submit the bug. So you really *didn't* read the bug report at all? Even after I had prompted you to? Because: a) he never said anything about ppc. b) he was wrong about the package he filed the bug against not building on aarch64 the first time, his problem was ubuntu was badly out of date. c) the update for "oh that thing we said would fix this forever, actually won't" was also wrong, as this package also didn't need updating for that either. d) the last time I tried to explain this to someone I got the same kind of dogmatic spray that you're giving me ... There's more, but hopefully that's hint enough. > It didn't build automatically in the wannabuild of OpenRISC/or1k > either, I don't know if due to problems with the package in the > architecture or why, Well ... Does that perhaps offer a clue as to what you should have been doing instead of furiously typing all of this? Or instead of hunting around desperately for more things you could hurl plainly false accusations about which you clearly didn't take the time to understand either? Please take a step back, and take some slow deep breaths, and have a bex and a lie down, or whatever your thing might be, and then go and have an actual careful look at what if anything is actually broken on your port that needs my attention. Because if you had done nothing more than grep for or1k in this package you might have realised there were some serious holes in what you have been claiming. And making ever more tangentially related wild claims isn't getting anyone any closer to the facts, if there are any to get closer to. If all you want to do is be loudly wrong on the internet, I'm not interested in playing. I can't fix that. If you want to be helpful here, show me the bug. Whatever it might be, voodoo is not the way to fix it. And I certainly can't guess what it is if you don't show me logs and just angrily tell me you threw it at the wall and it didn't stick and you don't know why, so you did something blindly. But there's not much point to me asking you the questions I have been to try to get to the bottom of that if all you're going to do is repeat the same one, wrong, answer, over and over and over in an increasingly hysterical tone of voice. So please, give me some actual relevant facts about how this breaks on your port, or just give it a rest. Is that really too much to ask? Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
