Non-responsive maintainer: corsepiu

[Richard Shaw]

Unfortunately I am in the position that I must initiate the non-responsive
maintainer policy for Ralf.

The Coin3 package has a serious bug[1] that was only recently uncovered by
GCC 6. During the process of figuring out the problem (and solution) I
asked the devel list for help. Thanks to those that quickly came to my aid.

In my efforts to get the problem fixed quickly I went ahead pushed a fix
into rawhide. Once I figured out the problem was with Coin3 I should have
filed a bug immediately which Ralf pointed out and for which I already
apologized and then followed up with the above BZ.

The bug has not gotten a response from Ralf for over 3 weeks and over a
week since my last ping. I hoped it was not the case but I must assume that
at this point he is intentionally ignoring the bug and causing a degraded
experience for Fedora users of FreeCAD who can't use it right now until the
problem is fixed.

Last I checked there was no indication he was on vacation/leave and
fedora-active-user shows plenty of recent activity.

Thanks,
Richard

[Richard Shaw]

Helps if I post the link:

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329814

And the original FreeCAD bug:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323159

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 05/16/2016 09:39 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>  Unfortunately I am in the position that I must initiate the
>  non-responsive maintainer policy for Ralf. 
I apologize for not having responded, but ...


>  The Coin3 package has a serious bug[1] that was only recently
> uncovered
>  by GCC 6. 
The big question here is, whether this issue is a bug in Coin at all or 
actually is a bug in GCC6 - I don't know.

>  During the process of figuring out the problem (and solution)
>  I asked the devel list for help. Thanks to those that quickly came to my
>  aid. 
I thought you guys did apply the patches, you had rushed in what I 
consider overly hasty ways - to say the least.

>  The bug has not gotten a response from Ralf for over 3 weeks and over
> a
>  week since my last ping. I hoped it was not the case but I must assume
>  that at this point he is intentionally ignoring the bug 
Though you are right
insofar as I took offense in your action and 
perceived it an unfriendly act, this does not apply.

Reality is, I simply haven't managed to look into this issue for 
seasonal reasons (Public holidays, short vacations) and had to priorise 
jobs.

>  Last I checked there was no indication he was on vacation/leave and
Check a South-German holiday calendar and you will see ;)

>  fedora-active-user shows plenty of recent activity. 
Correct.
There were, are higher priority issues but this bug.

Ralf

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;
wrote:

>  On 05/16/2016 09:39 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > The Coin3 package has a serious bug[1] that was only recently uncovered
> >
>  by GCC 6.
> >
>
>  The big question here is, whether this issue is a bug in Coin at all or
>  actually is a bug in GCC6 - I don't know. 

I'm not enough of a programmer to be able to tell, all I know is that the
only serious 3D CAD program for Fedora (and linux in general) is completely
unusable while this problem exists.


During the process of figuring out the problem (and solution)
> > I asked the devel list for help. Thanks to those that quickly
> came to my
> > aid.
> >
>
>  I thought you guys did apply the patches, you had rushed in what I
>  consider overly hasty ways - to say the least. 

Unfortunately not all of us packagers are full fledged programmers, if that
were a requirement Fedora would be much smaller. The fix worked as far as I
could tell, I did produce a test package first which the end user verified
fixed the problem which is as much as I can do other than ask upstream. Are
they even active?


> > Reality is, I simply haven't managed to look into this issue
> for seasonal
>  reasons (Public holidays, short vacations) and had to priorise jobs. 

I understand we are all volunteers here, I have plenty to do at $DAYJOB and
home life to more than consume my time. I even attempted to look at
potential holidays but I wasn't 100% sure where you lived so couldn't
really do much so I checked the mostly useless Fedora vacation/away
calendar.



>  fedora-active-user shows plenty of recent activity.
> >
>  Correct. There were, are higher priority issues but this bug.
>  
A simple acknowledgement by email or BZ would have sufficed. I don't know
what other problems you are working on so I will not make any comparisons,
but I do consider FreeCAD to be an important piece of software for Fedora
and both how quickly the problem was reported and the number of people I
heard from indicates it's important to Fedora users as well.

Thanks,
Richard

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 17/05/16 07:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 09:39 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >Unfortunately I am in the position that I must initiate the
> >non-responsive maintainer policy for Ralf.
>
> I apologize for not having responded, but ...
>
>
> >The Coin3 package has a serious bug[1] that was only recently uncovered
> >by GCC 6.
>
> The big question here is, whether this issue is a bug in Coin at all 
> or actually is a bug in GCC6 - I don't know. 
It's a bug in Coin. Absolutely 100% definitely.

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323159#c43

The code sets a memory location, then uses placement-new to construct
an object at that location. The object's constructor does not
initialize the member variable at that location, and expects it to
retain its previous value.

There is no guarantee in the C++ standard that the bytes underlying an
object retain the previous values after the object is constructed. The
code has undefined behaviour and must be fixed.

See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323159#c45 which
links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html which explicitly
states this new behaviour of GCC is intentional, and correct.

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 18/05/16 16:08 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17/05/16 07:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >On 05/16/2016 09:39 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >>Unfortunately I am in the position that I must initiate the
> >>non-responsive maintainer policy for Ralf.
> >
> >I apologize for not having responded, but ...
> >
> >
> >>The Coin3 package has a serious bug[1] that was only recently uncovered
> >>by GCC 6.
> >
> >The big question here is, whether this issue is a bug in Coin at all 
> >or actually is a bug in GCC6 - I don't know.
>
> It's a bug in Coin. Absolutely 100% definitely.
>
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323159#c43
>
> The code sets a memory location, then uses placement-new to construct
> an object at that location. The object's constructor does not
> initialize the member variable at that location, and expects it to
> retain its previous value.
>
> There is no guarantee in the C++ standard that the bytes underlying an
> object retain the previous values after the object is constructed. The
> code has undefined behaviour and must be fixed.
>
> See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323159#c45 which
> links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html which explicitly
> states this new behaviour of GCC is intentional, and correct. 
I also said this at
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...