inotify-tools with dead upstream cannot be fixed in Fedora

[Jan Kratochvil]

Hi,

Fix stack overflow in: `inotifytools_replace_filename`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741472

Not sure how to fix this crashing bug. Upstream is dead while Fedora package
maintainer requires to upstream the fix first. A Catch 22.

Debian has the crasher fixed by an off-trunk simple patch, Fedora cannot?


Jan

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 09:33:29PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  Fix stack overflow in: `inotifytools_replace_filename`
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741472
>  
>  Not sure how to fix this crashing bug. Upstream is dead while Fedora package
>  maintainer requires to upstream the fix first. A Catch 22.
>  
>  Debian has the crasher fixed by an off-trunk simple patch, Fedora cannot? 
I would start by pulling in the Debian fix into the Fedora package.
Then talk to the Debian folk and see if you can set up a simple git
repo on one of the many free hosting services to collect these patches
"upstream".

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:33:32 +0200, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 09:33:29PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>  > Fix stack overflow in: `inotifytools_replace_filename`
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741472
>  > 
>  > Not sure how to fix this crashing bug. Upstream is dead while Fedora package
>  > maintainer requires to upstream the fix first. A Catch 22.
>  > 
>  > Debian has the crasher fixed by an off-trunk simple patch, Fedora cannot?
>  
>  I would start by pulling in the Debian fix into the Fedora package. 
This is what I tried in the Bug above and I failed. So I have submitted
a request to become co-maintainer with no response so far.

(Besides that the Debian fix compared to my fix is a hack, not properly coded
from programming point of view. But I agree the Debian fix does work.)


>  Then talk to the Debian folk and see if you can set up a simple git
>  repo on one of the many free hosting services to collect these patches
>  "upstream". 
There is already upstream but its maintainer does not respond. So do you mean
to make a new upstream? Is it really required to push 2 characters of a fix to
Fedora package?


Jan

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:46 PM Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:33:32 +0200, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  > On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 09:33:29PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>  > > Fix stack overflow in: `inotifytools_replace_filename`
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741472
>  > >
>  > > Not sure how to fix this crashing bug. Upstream is dead while Fedora package
>  > > maintainer requires to upstream the fix first. A Catch 22.
>  > >
>  > > Debian has the crasher fixed by an off-trunk simple patch, Fedora cannot?
>  >
>  > I would start by pulling in the Debian fix into the Fedora package.
>
>  This is what I tried in the Bug above and I failed. So I have submitted
>  a request to become co-maintainer with no response so far.
>
>  (Besides that the Debian fix compared to my fix is a hack, not properly coded
>  from programming point of view. But I agree the Debian fix does work.)
>
>
>  > Then talk to the Debian folk and see if you can set up a simple git
>  > repo on one of the many free hosting services to collect these patches
>  > "upstream".
>
>  There is already upstream but its maintainer does not respond. So do you mean
>  to make a new upstream? Is it really required to push 2 characters of a fix to
>  Fedora package? 
This isn't required, no. That being said, if this package is abandoned
upstream then it probably makes sense to contact the Debian maintainer
and establish a fork where our projects can at least share patches. If
upstream comes back to life, we can merge them back together then.

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:43:48 +0200, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  This isn't required, no. That being said, if this package is
> abandoned
>  upstream then it probably makes sense to contact the Debian maintainer
>  and establish a fork where our projects can at least share patches. If
>  upstream comes back to life, we can merge them back together then. 
I have been given co-maintainership of the Fedora package so I have finally
imported 2 crasher fixing patches from Debian into Fedora. So I find the issue
resolved from my point of view.

I have now also sent mail to the Debian maintaner about a new possible
upstream fork.

Thanks for the response.


Jan