On 10/26/2010 06:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday, October 25, 2010 18:17:21 Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Monday 25 October 2010 19:06:45 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >>> Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: >>>> Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the >>>> linux >>>> headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... >>> >>> Upstream seem not to care about fixing that; we used to have a patch to >>> "fix" linux-headers, but Mike dropped it with 2.6.35 to stay as close to >>> upstream as possible. >> >> so now we prefer poor workarounds in dozens of packages to fixing the real >> bug in a single one in order to stay as close as possible to an >> unresponsive upstream? nice > > you're free to argue the merits on lkml like anyone else. this package is > going to be broken in pretty much every distro out there, so pushing limits.h > to whichever package's upstream would be useful too. > -mike
for this particular package, it's already fixed in trunk http://mpfc.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mpfc/trunk/plugins/input/audiocd/audiocd.c?r1=261&r2=288
