[Pkg-alsa-devel] Bug#369411: alsa-lib: FTBFS on AMD64 (32-bit link problems)

[James Troup]

Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32.net> writes:

> True, this part has been rejected upstream, but all other parts, ie
> most of them, have been accepted. So I can't let you say the "patch as
> originally posted was rejected there".

Sorry, maybe you speak a different English from me.  The patch as
originally posted[1] was rejected because it has not been applied to
upstream CVS.  This is demonstrably true.

On the other hand your claim ("Well this patch has been merged
upstream in November 2005 [...] The only missing part is Debian
specific") is demonstrably untrue.

Now let's leave that aside and pretend we accept your strange
reinterpretation of "as originally posted" for a moment, let's look at
the patch and what was accepted and what wasn't.

(1) | binutils-2.16/debian/patches/00list                        |    2
(2) | binutils-2.16/debian/rules                                 |    2
(3) | debian/patches/123_kfreebsd_ld_so_conf.dpatch              |   72 +++++++++++++
(4) | debian/patches/124_kfreebsd_ld_so_executable_shared.dpatch |   54 +++++++++
    | 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(1) and (2) are obviously debian specific, (3) was accepted and (4)
was rejected.  So of the upstream parts half (1 of 2) was rejected and
half was accepted.  How you think it's reasonable to represent 1 out
of 2 patches, or 50% as "but all other parts, ie most of them", I'm
honestly not sure.

Anyway, again, thanks a lot for making me spend the time researching
this, it's a REALLY GOOD use of my time.  Anytime you want to stop
making obviously and demonstrably untrue claims about binutils
patches, that'd be really great, because maybe then I could spend some
time on maintaining binutils instead.

-- 
James

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi/binutils_2.16-0.kfreebsd.patch?bug=315306;msg=5;att=1