[aur-general] Unresponsive maintainer (=TU)
webreg at vbsimple.net
Wed Nov 12 11:18:30 UTC 2014
First of all thank you for posting this discussion in the ML, I'd be glad to read some other opinions here.
About the unresponsive maintainer the situation requires testing and fixes to package that I'm not able to do now.
I could answer you to inform you about the point but I wished to do a better investigation to track the source of the issue.
The package here discussed is mysql-clients (sorry for no links, I'm writing from my mobile phone) and basically it's built like the mariadb-clients using the flag no-rtti .
Another package in the AUR called mysql-connector-c++, which unfortunately I don't use, requires the mysql-clients package to be built without the no-rtti flag.
This is entirely the point here, I don't know why the mysql-connector-c++ is unable to built without rtti. The same package builds fine using mariadb-clients WITH no-rtti.
I think the issue should be searched in the mysql-connector-c++ package, building the mysql-clients package using different build options is not the proper way to solve the issue. The same would happen if the mysql-clients package would be still in the official repository.
The current maintainer of mysql-connector-c++ should help me to find and solve the mysql-connector-c++ issues with mysql-clients when using the no-rtti instead of asking to alter the build process for the mysql-clients package.
I'm not at all convinced the issue is in mysql-clients package as the mariadb-clients is built with the same flags and it doesn't produce any issue with the mysql-connector-c++ package.
Il 12 novembre 2014 01:43:27 CET, Marcel Korpel <marcel.korpel at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>On 10 October I discovered an error building mysql-connector-c++ when
>(Oracle's) MySQL  is build with compiler flag -fno-rtti. I posted a
>comment asking about the removal of this flag in PKGBUILD (it only
>saves a bit of memory, but everything works fine without this flag).
>On 29 October I sent the maintainer (cc'ed here) an email politely
>asking again to remove the problematic flag. Until now I didn't get a
>response, nor did he change his PKGBUILD. Now someone else is asking
>same in a comment.
>What to do in this situation? Filing an orphanage request seems too
>harsh to me. Moreover, the maintainer is a TU.
>Any advice is welcome.
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità.
More information about the aur-general