Summary: | sys-apps/util-linux-2.15 does not patch with USE=loop-aes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Wilbur Pan <wilburpan> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | anm.mlist01, bertrand, boltomli, craig_c0, dkarasik, polynomial-c, sandro.bonazzola |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Wilbur Pan
2009-05-06 01:11:09 UTC
Upstream for loop-aes, Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@users.sourceforge.net>, needs to update the loop-aes patch. like every other update, you'll have to ask upstream loop-aes for an update. we do not maintain/update the loop-aes code at all. Okay, I sent off an email. Just so I know, is it my responsibility to notify the loop-aes maintainers of this issue? I would think that if this should be addressed upstream, that the Gentoo devs would do so. the only reason loop-aes is in the ebuild is as a favor to one or two people, and because we dont want to listen to people complain about it not being there. it isnt supported by any of the Gentoo util-linux maintainers. I understand that loop-aes isn't maintained by the util-linux maintainers. What I was asking is if the usual protocol would be for the bug reporter (me) to report issues upstream, or, in this case, if the Gentoo devs would do so. The main reason for me asking is that there might be more of a response from upstream if the upstream report came from a more "official" source, rather than from some random person. it depends. with loop-aes, people who care should bug upstream. i'm content to let it fail indefinitely. Received a response regarding the patches. http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/updates/util-linux-ng-2.15-20090511.diff.bz2 http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/updates/util-linux-ng-2.15-20090511.diff.bz2.sign Can the ebuild be adjusted for these? I'd say that there are much more than "one or two" people using loop-aes. Would be good if it would be fully supported or at least treated seriously. you read my comment wrong. i said it was a *favor* to one or two. the rest are irrelevant. if people continue to moan over it, i'll simply drop it and people can deal with it themselves. http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/util-linux/util-linux-2.15.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 if there are enough people using it, it can't be irrelevant. And if people moan over it, they shouldn't use the Flag, but thats no reason to drop it. you read my comment wrong as well. i didnt say loop-aes is irrelevant, i said the number of people using it is irrelevant wrt keeping support in the ebuild. the maintainer of the package is the one doing the work and the one who gets to choose what to keep/drop. no one is offering to maintain it, so the current behavior isnt going to change (i.e. i'm not updating the patch myself anymore). |