|
Message-ID: <20130316225824.GK20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:58:25 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl setup attempt On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:54:39 -0400 > LM <lmemsm@...il.com> wrote: > > > I have really mixed results with reporting portability bugs. More > > often than not, projects refuse to accept the bugs unless they're for > > platforms they officially support. I typically work with > > cross-platform software, but many of the cross-platform projects still > > only officially support a limited number of systems. Some of them > > have even been down-right nasty when I submit a patch to fix an issue > > for my platform. (Of course, I've run across some projects where the > > developers have been very nice too and fix things extremely quickly.) > > Am very curious if anyone else has had problems with this sort of > > thing and how you handle the situation. > > A few points: > 1) Patches beat bug reports. Make sure that you note upstream policy > about copyright assignments and so on, though. > Also follow the code style upstream uses. > 2) Make sure it's not going to break upstream policy. > Examples: don't change -std=c89 > 3) Make sure it doesn't disable something for other platforms (eg, > breaking tests for uclibc) > 4) Make it as little change as appropriate > 5) If at all possible, test on other platforms. > > The best response I had was a trivial patch for libnl (adding a > couple headers) which I prepared, tested on musl and glibc, then > sent with a comment that it fixed build on musl and worked on glibc. > It was applied almost immediately. Thank you. This email belongs on the wiki. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.