On Mon 03 Apr 2006, Ian Jackson wrote: > Here is the diff updated to apply cleanly to 2.6.4-6.
Very nice, unfortunately the current version is 2.6.7-1. 2.6.4-6 is a year old (although I admit that's the version in stable at this time). > I notice that you didn't reply to my explanation of the 25th of May > 2004, nor to my updated patch of the 1st of March 2005. Perhaps you > would like me to make an NMU ? You want to make an NMU of 2.6.4-6? ie., 2.6.4-6.1 ? I don't see how I can have anything against that :-) >From your response then: : It seems to me that one role of a Debian package maintainer is to : handle issues like this with upstream. I don't think in general bug : reports with sensible patches should elicit a `take it upstream' : response. If you think that the patch would be sensible upstream : (which may well be true) then I think you should pass it on. I thought it would have been clear from my reactions that I don't see that this is useful to have in the mainstream. Hence, the qualification "bug reports with sensible patches" doesn't apply in my view. As a consequence, "the patch would be sensible upstream" qualification doesn't apply either, so in my opinion I shouldn't be bothering the upstream maintainer with it. However, you are of course free to join the mailing list and pursue the matter if you think it is important. : An alternative option is to make rsync _always_ unbuffer stdout when : you say --progress, but I wasn't sure that was right. Now that does make more sense to me, because with --progress you indicate you want up to date info, and hence output buffering then doesn't make much sense. If you could knock up a patch for that (against 2.6.7-1 please!) then I'd be much more prone to add that. Paul Slootman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
