This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Latest Glibc from CVS has segmentation problems.

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

   It seems that such reports of errors and omissions in INSTALL are
   no longer welcome. In fact, I almost wonder if the user community
   would be better served by replacing the entire contents of INSTALL
   with "Don't", possibly followed by "And if you absolutely must,
   copy what the distribution makers do."

They are quite welcome, when someone sends a patch for them, not when
someone bitches about it without doing any work.  Nobody has even
tried to update the INSTALL here, or actually suggested improvements
for it.

This list can be a black hole for patches. I have twice posted a correctly formatted patch, against CVS glibc, with a properly formatted ChangeLog entry, to fix a very obvious set of errors in a glibc testcase. This patch did not introduce new functionality, and did not change any functionality that was not obviously broken, because this testcase has a dozen or more sub-tests, and the older ones work the correct way while the newer ones do not. This was most likely caused by a simple cut-and-paste error that was never corrected.

The first time I sent the patch, on 2004-01-27, no response was forthcoming. I sent it again on 2004-02-09, and this time Roland accepted it and committed, although silently :-) So in spite of all this discussion, properly constructed patches that fix actual problems _do_ get accepted. There is a hurdle to get over in that you have to make sure you conform to the not-at-all-documented requirements for patch submission, but lurking on this list for a while will allow you to learn what those requirements are. I learned because my first attempts at solving the problem were in entirely the wrong direction, and once I found the correct direction another problem surfaced. This is the problem whose patch was actually accepted (after Uli correctly rejected the first one).

Possibly a helpful solution to this problem would be for Uli and the others to appoint one or more "lieutenants" (as Linus Torvalds has done) to deal with the people who are working below the maintainers' level.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]