[pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri Dec 16 18:10:26 UTC 2011
Svante Signell writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> [ stuff ]
It looks like I'm not expressing myself well enough. Or at any rate,
I'm not getting through. Perhaps someone else would like to try to
I'll have one more go:
> Please refer to Samuel Thibault, he is the buildd
> admin, also a DM and DD. I am neither!
> 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.
By "you" I meant "the people in Debian who are trying to get this
problem fixed". That might include you personally (I guess you are a
hurd porter?) but it also includes the various DMs, sponsors, etc.
> 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?
You can summarise and digest it. An upstream developer does not want
to read a long mailing list thread; they need a clear and integrated
summary of the situation.
> > 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
Reading between the lines I think you mean "hurd does not supply a
definition of PATH_MAX and isc-dhcp relies on PATH_MAX being defined".
But you aren't saying that. Instead you're just waving your arms
vigorously and shouting the single word "PATH_MAX" louder and louder.
For example, you haven't explained why you think it is the fault of
isc-dhcp for wanting PATH_MAX rather than the fault of hurd for not
(I agree that PATH_MAX is a bad interface but I would be inclined
simply to #define it as 4096 and be done with it.)
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "lpf.c". Your
patch submission need to explain things to someone who is unfamiliar
with the background (for example, a submissionn to isc-dhcp should
not assume that the reader knows anything much about Hurd or Debian)
and be complete and comprehensible. Evidently you don't have such a
summary or I guess you would have pasted into your emails here. But
you (collectively) need to write one.
> > - 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.
I'm afraid that my opinion is that upstream's failure to engage
here is entirely understandable.
> > 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.
> Are there any rules for what to include in a patch? I've never seen one.
Many projects have their own documents, but the general principles are
the same across many free software projects.
More information about the pkg-dhcp-devel