On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 05:04 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: > The first one is, the others aren't.
Okay, I can fix that in the control file. > Well, when I first tried to use ltp, there were the other bugs that made > ltp totally nonfunctional, and these were already filed. I agree with this--LTP has problems. There are still bashisms present in shell scripts. It does not always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [1]. Some of its tests have a bias toward other Linux distributions where much of the early development was performed. "Fixing the functionality" provided by the LTP is a noble goal, and I absolutely support this. However, that should be done upstream with the LTP community. I'm offering to update the nearly-two-year-old Debian LTP package to something more recent, and continue maintaining and improving the package. I would like to focus the current discussion on pertinent packaging issues that need to be solved for this to happen. > So I started my own packaging and found out there were many other > bugs. Interesting. I'm willing to drop the package I've prepared, withdraw the proposal I've submitted for maintenance, and sync the Ubuntu LTP packages to your packaging, if you're willing to assume ownership of Debian LTP and update the Debian package accordingly. > I didn't file these because there wasn't any response on the old bugs, > and also because I used a newer version of upstream. The package is marked as 'orphaned' [2]. I am trying to solve that problem. > Subsequently, I fixed at least some of these bugs, which meant > creating 28 patches changing ~140 files (and more in the debian > directory that I don't manage by patches). And given that amount of > work, I think the normal Debian workflow (file a bug -> wait a month > for an updated version (1 month is actually pretty good response time > for a <serious severity bug) -> find out it still has other bugs) is > simply not gonna work. I have some ~50 bugs open, and these are mostly > bugs I cannot fix. So I'm not gonna litter my bug page with another > ~10 for ltp that are actually easier for me to fix than file bugreport > about, sorry. Are any of these patches upstream? If any of them have made it into LTP upstream since 18 Sep 2006, I would think that you should benefit from an updated LTP package in Debian. Work your fixes into upstream. Get an active Debian maintainer. I'd think you should see this process improve. And if not, you have your own packages right? :-Dustin [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/ltp.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
