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... > 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. A.
