On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 21:03:51 +0100 Steven Honeyman <stevenhoneyman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 July 2014 20:37, Bartłomiej Piotrowski <b@bpiotrowski.pl> wrote:
Yes, I have accepted the request, then realized it's completely untrue and asked the maintainer to re-adopt it. Additionally I'm the one who flagged the package because, obviously, there is a newer release, not because it's broken. Do you really see the point in fixing compilation using clang when literally nothing in PKGBUILD references it? I do not.
Please stop wasting time, either people's and yours.
-- Bartłomiej Piotrowski http://bpiotrowski.pl/
That makes less sense than falconandy's responses.
Firstly, musl 1.0.3 was released June 6th [1]. The AUR package was updated to this version on June 7th [2] - there is not a newer release, and 1.0.3 is still the current stable version. So if you did flag as out of date, it's *you* wasting his time.
As for your second point, that's as stupid as saying "literally nothing in the linux kernel references <brand new laptop> so there's no point in fixing drivers for it"
[1] http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?h=rs-1.0&id=30bd499ae1f62e9d2fad4282d42057083709e0eb [2] http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git/commit/musl/PKGBUILD?id=5588dabbf0bc6...
If only you were curious enough to actually use musl at least once it would be clear to you that the branch naming scheme used by upstream is at least misleading. Whatever you do 1.1.x is newer than 1.0 and in many cases is more useful. But sure, better whine about clang and make unrelated comparison to developemnt of drivers in Linux kernel. Good luck, you are going to need it a lot. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski http://bpiotrowski.pl/