Bug#522774: Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011-07-29 Thread Robert Millan 
2011/7/29 Moritz Mühlenhoff :
> We already asked you back in September 2009 to report this upstream.

He did, precisely in September 2009:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14186

He still got no response though.

-- 
Robert Millan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxmrxy9tx_5mzdgqoqw-5rvnsjmrtze5qze5yn3pber...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#522774: Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011-07-29 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff 
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 07:09:37PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Ben Hutchings dixit:
> 
> The use of __undefined in the BSDs predates use of it by
> both Linux and GNU. (But when using this argumentation
> style, we’d probably better take this upstream… except
> that upstream may not be helping…)

We already asked you back in September 2009 to report this upstream.

If you don't think that will help, we can just close the bug, then. 

Cheers,
Moritz



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110729150817.GA23022@pisco.westfalen.local

Bug#522774: Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011-06-19 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
Ben Hutchings dixit:

>> Honestly, when resolving this I’d go for “who has the older
>> rights”. Maybe look at how CSUR resolves different claims to
>> the same part of the Unicode PUA, or something like that.
>> Nevertheless, thanks on picking this up.
>
>Debian GNU/Linux is the older system; the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
>maintainers have to deal with compatibility issues.

The use of __undefined in the BSDs predates use of it by
both Linux and GNU. (But when using this argumentation
style, we’d probably better take this upstream… except
that upstream may not be helping…)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
“It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
 seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
 seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.”
-- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1106191908340.20...@herc.mirbsd.org

Bug#522774: Bug#522773: possible solutions for __unused problem

2011-06-19 Thread Ben Hutchings 
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 18:24 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Robert Millan dixit:
> 
> >I can see they wouldn't be excited about it, but they might also accept
> 
> You know that there are more than one BSD, but only one glibc,
> IIRC Drepper isn’t even its maintainer any more.

According to  "Ulrich Drepper is
currently the foremost contributor and has overall responsibility for
maintenance and development."

> Try persuading
> for example Theo de Raadt of anything which doesn’t have any
> immediate technical merit… have fun ;-)
> 
> Honestly, when resolving this I’d go for “who has the older
> rights”. Maybe look at how CSUR resolves different claims to
> the same part of the Unicode PUA, or something like that.
> Nevertheless, thanks on picking this up.

Debian GNU/Linux is the older system; the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
maintainers have to deal with compatibility issues.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer


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