Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
>>> a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
>>> thread is just their latest, last-ditch effort since nothing else
>>> worked so far. But I could be wrong, I guess.
>>
>> You are right. The patch has been around for years and requests for any
>> response to the patch have just been ignored.
>
> According to the bug log the patch was not ready when the maintainer
> wanted to apply it and nobody bothered to start an NMU process...
>
> Cheers
>
> Luk
What bug are you reading?
Sat, 27 May 2006 10:16:36 +0200: initial report with patch
Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:26 +0200: NMU attempt gets vetoed
Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:01:53 +0200: 2. maintainer misunderstands the patch
Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:44:30 +0200: some discussion about the misunderstanding
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:58:28 +0200: patch update for the i386->i486 ABI change
Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:12:48 +0200: prodding the maintainer for an reaction
Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:43:16 +0100: first real reply by maintainer
Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:14:35 +0200: patch fix for issues raise by maintainer
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:56:45 +0200: patch split into the ABI and multiarch parts
An NMU was tried and it and all future NMU where vetoed by the maintainer.
In summary:
- 13 month from initial report to raising a minor issue that has no
negative effects on the functionality
- 4 days to fix the issue
- 9 month without reaction and counting
In that time (packages.qa.d.o only goes back to 2007-04-06) there have
been over 20 uploads of binutils. And all we get is ONE test of the
patch with no followup on the fix we send?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
