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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
