Am Saturday 19 March 2011 schrieb Thibaut VARENE: > > You wrote you build it already. Do you have that package still > > available? Then I'd test it after I am convinced that the fsync() > > based version does what it should. > > Well no, I don't have the test build anymore. Since you were able to > test your own patch, I assumed you'd be capable of testing another > one.
Its not about capability its about time. But when you don't have that build anymore, you'd have to invest that time as well - without being bothered by this issue instead of having some responsibility for the package since you are the maintainer. > Now, you may think I'm an arse, I don't care. The point is, you have > your opinion and I have mine. In the end I'm not taking any action > until the patch I took the pain to offer has been tested, and/or > upstream author makes a call. After all, it's his piece of software. > > I too, have better things to do than arguing over and over on the > comparative merits of different approaches. Well its your package after all. I might come back to testing the patch. But considering the tone we have in this discussion - which I contributed too, I admit, cause I was so utterly fed up with this data loss issues that remained unfixed for a really long time that it is not even funny anymore - I might also take a break and just enjoy the fsync() version I made that works for me. I considered splitting the package all-in-one patch into several patches cause your patch is no one-liner - my was and thus I thought I can just get away with it. But then I am not the package maintainer and for testing just could have patched it on top of it. Well maybe when the next version of the package comes and I would have to built a new package anyway I can take your patch instead of adding the fsync(). Or when I have so much spare time again that I feel like spending some on this issue. Aside from that I can just continue maintain my own version of the package - adding the fsync() is easy enough and its free software after all. So issue is settled for me, you might hear back from me with some test results of your patch or not. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
