From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537F01C03 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:08:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1669118934; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AVTWWcWtsR+i0jxDwydXBqCoGVV3RFDi3OVxRstVWF8=; b=X7vHbxVC9emdCxUmjN2CWDXLPK59KOggnVxHFadXhxcRvHZfnykZ6ZwfyG/PIigHwS6oet O63AXiFfALdQTb130vSl4LZy49Y39TRT50AJx0/yF/6wvurGla65eUSOdMKykQcUVS00Gq p02GHsRzicdlR+zCxz9m7rZdXlP3Xmk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-31-U3stG_mbOVaiRUSwPQ6NJg-1; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:08:53 -0500 X-MC-Unique: U3stG_mbOVaiRUSwPQ6NJg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC025800186; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 442572024CBE; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:08:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Sam James Cc: c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Best method to share that something is broken + patches? References: <87zgcjfmyi.fsf@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:08:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87zgcjfmyi.fsf@gentoo.org> (Sam James's message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:48:53 +0000") Message-ID: <87h6yrqjhr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain * Sam James: > We didn't really have a proper chance to discuss how the list > mechanics should work yet, as we got caught a bit off guard by the LWN > (and then Phoronix) articles. Yeah, that's true. > For me, there's a few big questions: > 1. How do we notify others that a package is broken? I feel like we > shouldn't bother if something has very frequent releases, but > otherwise, it's probably going to be worth sharing. I'm keeping track of fixes here: I could configure the repository so that updates to it are posted to this list. But it's pretty noisy. And I'm not sure if other Fedora maintainers will contribute patches there. > 2. How do we share patches for them? For Fedora, applying a patch and verifying it is typically more work than creating it. The patch creation process itself is fairly simple compared to the administrative overhead. In my experience so far, the best way to find upstream patches is to fix the build, and then look for recent upstream changes to these files. So I'm not sure how helpful sharing will be. I think our best bet for sharing is to do it via upstream. If there isn't an upstream left, that's okay, too, because people *not* using distributions will not be impacted by the build being broken. The most significant gap seem to be upstreams which are still around, but do not follow an open development process (or do not take our patches for other reasons). In those cases, it's hard to make the patches stick. I think Gentoo has been at this for a bit longer. Looking back at the patches you created, are they actually share-worthy? Thanks, Florian