gnupic: Re: [gnupic] Re: gpasm `extern' vs `global' (new feature patch)
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] Re: gpasm `extern' vs `global' (new feature patch)
From:
Ian Jackson ####@####.####
Date:
21 Apr 2005 11:19:38 +0100
Message-Id: <16999.32309.445905.83934@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
Craig Franklin writes ("[gnupic] Re: gpasm `extern' vs `global' (new feature patch)"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >I'd be grateful if you'd let me know what you think of [my patch],
> >and I would be very happy if it were included in future gputils
> >versions.
>
> It seems like a reasonable request. Give me a few days to run some
> tests and think about the consequences.
Thanks.
> >The patch was made against Debian's gputils 0.13.1-1. This will be
> >very similar to upstream 0.13.1. Note though that due to a bug in
> >0.13.1-1 I'm actually using 0.12.4-1 to which the patch also applies
> >cleanly.
>
> Are you referring to this?
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=305547
Yes. Sorry for not giving a reference earlier, but I hadn't had the
bug back from the Debian BTS.
> I don't generally review gputils bug reports on the debian tracker. In
> the future, it would be better if the bug was added to gputils
> sourceforge or reported to me.
Certainly I wouldn't expect you to follow the Debian bugtracker. The
Debian maintainer is supposed to pass on bug reports to the upstream
author/maintainer (when they're not specific to the Debian version).
Some upstreams have become rather upset by getting bugs from Debian
users about versions of the package that the upstream feels (often
rightly, IMO!) have been unhelpfully mangled.
But since you ask, I'll mail you directly next time. I don't think
the bug in Debian #305547 is Debian-specific.
> I will try to take a look at the bug tomorrow.
Thanks. Let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Ian.
