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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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 before
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Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.
Fedora's version may be out of date, but I suspect that this particular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.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
