On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tuesday 26 October 2010 12:11:50 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. > > I thought this was maintainer's job...
the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the field. at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint. >> 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. > > I'm sorry, I'm used to push patches I, _at least_, believe to be correct. > > > In any case, there's nothing to argue on my side: you seem very well aware > that because you're being lazy to fix the bugs and argue with upstream you are > pushing stupid workarounds on others because said package happens to be widely > used. Fortunately I never had to face such an issue, even though if I happen > to, don't expect me to do anything else than forwarding the bug to the headers > maintainers with a rant. you might want to look up some history before making stupid accusations -mike
