On 2026/10/18 16:31, Niko Tyni wrote:
FWIW I think the IPC::SharedMem approach looks like the right thing to do here.I also agree with Gregor that the 'IPC::SharedMem::stat'->new->unpack($data) part in the patch looks a bit out of place and should probably be replaced with a call to IPC::SharedMem::stat() that does the same thing. Upstream would probably find it easier to untangle all this with separate actual pull requests rather than a patch dump with two different approaches. Hope this helps a bit, sorry for just another drive by contribution.
Thank you for your eyes and for your reply, Niko! Happy to receive your feedback.
Let me see if I can untangle the upstream bug report.As for the Debian situation, I am not sure what should be done. Gregor feels for taking the one patch idea (minimal), you think the other one would be the right thing to do, but perhaps only after a change.
Since I would have to ask AI to work out a rewrite of the longer patch, perhaps I shouldn't suggest one?
Alternatively - just as a question - that architecture could just be disabled for this package? Would that break any deployments that we know of?
Kind regards,
Edmund
--
Edmund Lodewijks <[email protected]>
TZ: UTC+2 / GMT+2
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
