On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 09:46 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-05 at 16:29 +0530, Rohan Garg wrote: > > I can file a bug for tracking purposes and get the patched package in > > the archives, as long as upstream is willing to accept the patch ( or > > a modified version of the patch ) in the near future. I don't speak > > for the rest of the Ubuntu developers, but I consider the best > > approach to getting issues fixed in distros. > > Hi, > I do not package bluez for Fedora, thus I've no idea about it, but we > found this issue while building on Fedora. And is it still broken or was bluez patched? I don't remember. > Rohan, is it a typo or you really meant to say "fixed in distro"? As far > as I can tell, all the major distros will suffer of the issue, thus why > should each of them apply patch on their own, when it belongs to > upstream, from my point of view? Fixing it upstream certainly would be preferred, but as long as it is not fixed there, distros need to find a workaround if they want to continue supporting C++ apps like SyncEvolution. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
