On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 22:36 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Thursday 08 June 2006 15:34, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Actually, this isn't exactly true. In the case of a compile fix, such > > as this, the developer is aware of the issue, and gcc-porting@ is on the > > bug, too, as CC, usually. If someone from gcc-porting were to go around > > committing patches to my ebuilds, I know I wouldn't mind. It would > > reduce my workload greatly, especially as they're the experts on what is > > and isn't allowed in gcc 4.1, versus myself, who is a gcc 4.1 > > amateur. ;] > > > > The truth is that there's tens of thousands of possible patch-providers > > (users) and only ~300 people with commit rights. Even fewer when you > > consider that the package in question may have a single maintainer, or > > only a small team. Most of the packages that are blocking that bug are > > games. We're working on them, but there's a small group of us and a > > very large number of packages, many of which are very poorly coded and > > require a lot of work and testing. > > Perhaps we should do something about this problem. There are still many > committers. Take myself for example, I have (of course) my own overlay, and > sometimes I must confess that I just fix these kinds of bugs for myself, add > it to my overlay and forget about it. Perhaps if it were easier to fix these > things in tree, it would be better for gentoo. I do not mean to say that it > should become a free-for-all, but fixing these kinds of issues is beneficial.
If *any* developer came to us with a patch for GCC 4.1.1 and one of our games and asks if they can fix it, I know for a fact that I will definitely say yes. I'm pretty sure none of the other guys would object to it, either. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
