On 01/07/16 10:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30/06/16 16:27 +0000, Christopher wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com>
>>> First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If upstream
>>> will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora
>>> upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
>>> other way.
>>In the hadoop case it might not be valid to do that as the version in
>>Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.
>Fedora's version may be out of date, but I suspect that this particular
>part of Hadoop's code is not fast moving, and would still be relevant to
>even their latest versions. At the very least, it's worth an attempt to
>contact them upstream first.
>I do have an interest in updating Fedora's packaged version of Hadoop, and
>if the patch is good, it'd be nice to have it in upstream so we don't have
>to keep it around when we move to the newer version. So, even if they
>aren't willing to support the patch for our version, if they're willing to
>support it in any of their latest supported versions, I'd be fine keeping
>the backported patch until we upgrade.
>As I said in the BZ, I just don't have the expertise to evaluate the patch
>myself to know if it's good or if it's going to cause problems. A +1 from
>upstream, a proven packager, or the secondary arch team, would be
>sufficient for me.
A security expert and a proven packager have evaluated it, and pointed
out two bugs in the code.
That's minus two so far, how many do you need?
Oh, I see they've been responded to. The aliasing problem might be
pre-existing, but is still wrong.
I guess if someone else wants to approve it I don't care.