[pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]

[Svante Signell]

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:20 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:15 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Where can I find the detailed explanation of why this patch is
> > > required and how it works to fix the problems ?  At the moment I can't
> > > even seem to find an error message from an FTBFS log.
> 
> This was really my key question.

Looks like there is no old FTBFS build log, but since the build will
fail due to PATH_MAX issues, why is a failed build log so important?

Since the patch was created this package was built using the patch in
Debian bug #616290 and is available in debian-ports since March 2011.
That is the reason for not queuing this package to the buildds, it would
be a waste of time. Please refer to Samuel Thibault, he is the buildd
admin, also a DM and DD. I am neither!

> Any submission of a patch allegedly fixing a bug (by which I mean to
> include a portability problem), to any project, should include a clear
> description, in detail, of what the bug is thought to be and how the
> patch solves it.

I wrote in parts of my previous mail (which you removed) about the two
issues: PATH_MAX and lpf.c. And PATH_MAX is not only a problem with this
package!

> > More information can be found at the debian-hurd and bug-hurd ML
> > archives:
> > 
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2011-02/threads.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2011-03/threads.html
> 
> A reference to a mailing list thread may helpful as background
> reading, but I'm afraid it does not meet the standard I would expect
> for a patch submission.

You asked for more information, and it is there. It is also available
from the debian-hurd mailing list. I cannot rewrite history, can I?

Are there any rules for what to include in a patch? I've never seen one.

> I'm afraid you need to go back and revise your submissions to isc-dhcp
> upstream.  You need to:
>  * Identify what the separate problems are
> 

Note: I have not submitted any patch to upstream ISC-DHCP, read the bug
log! Neither has Samuel, all communication was via the DM in this bug
report! The patch was submitted upstream by the Debian Maintainer,
Andrew Pollock.

>  * For each individual problem:
>    - Research applicable best practices and standards

Done already!

>    - Decide accordingly whether the fault lies with isc-dhcp or hurd

See above, PATH_MAX and lpf.c!

>    - Decide how to fix the problem

The patch is already there! It could be revised if upstream had any
interest in communicating, either with the patch submitters or the DM.

>    - Create and test a separate patch, either against isc-dhcpd or
>      hurd or perhaps both

There is no patch against Hurd, only against isc-dhcp!

>    - Write a clear and detailed explanation; this explanation
>      should cover all of the matters I've just mentioned.

We will do that (in addition to the previous mail) if upstream was
interested in communicating.

> So far our (Debian's) communications with dhcpd upstream on this topic
> seem to be lacking in this area.  If you like I would be happy to
> review your next submissiosn to upstream, before you send them.

As said before: _ALL_(the very limited) communication with upstream has
been via the DM, and the Debian bug. There has been _no_ submission
upstream of _any_ patches, either by me or Samuel. And the DM is Andrew
Pollock, at least this is what the package webpage says. Who are in the
Debian ISC DHCP Maintainers group I don't have any idea, where is that
found?

I think Samuel should reply on this matter, I just happen to be the
person submitting the bug report. And I am very grateful for his help in
creating the patch to make isc-dhcp working for GNU/Hurd. Otherwise we
would not have come as far as we have on the Debian-Installer port for
GNU/Hurd.