Pleading for commit

[Duane Whitty]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 02:08:32PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:04:09PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > In the last episode (Oct 24), Doug Barton said:
> > > Duane Whitty wrote:
> > > >Patching it myself after every cvs update is not such a big deal; It
> > > >is forgetting to patch it after every update which is a big deal.
> > > 
> > > Write a little script for yourself that calls cvsup then runs patch
> > > so you won't forget. :)
> > 
> > Or cvsup the CVS repository (instead of using checkout mode), check out
> > your working tree from there, and run "cvs update" to update your
> > sources, which will preserve local changes.
> 
> ... or run a local CVS/SVN/whatever repo and keep your
> customized FreeBSD source tree in it and import recent
> FreeBSD changes once in a while, as tough guys do... :-)
> 
> Well, returning to the main topic, inability to run Flash
> can be a good thing, after all, if your browser doesn't
> have a knob to turn the damned thing off. :-)  But what
> else suffers in an unpatched system?
> 
> -- 
> Yar

:) Yeah, I am actually running 2 source trees now, 1 for STABLE
and 1 for CURRENT, as part of a doc project I am trying to work
on. And of course I am cvsup-ing the entire repo and not just checking
out a particular branch.  Guess I'm being lazy :)  A build failed on
me one time when I had forgotten I was playing with things and didn't
tell cvs to overwrite my local changes (which obviously weren't working).
So now my usual command for src is cvs update -d -P -C, with -C
overwriting local changes.  But I digress... :)

To answer your question; nothing else suffers in an unpatched system.

As well I have had some correspondence with Alexander Kabaev about this
matter and I cannot readily dismiss his reasons for not wanting this patch
in the tree.  Given his strong, logical arguments, the fact that nothing
suffers without the patch, the positive outlook that we'll be able to
run the linux Flash 9 binary, and that anyone who wants to can apply the
patch locally, I'm ready to say "I surrender" :)  Actually with Alexander's
arguments I am now torn myslef as to whether or not the patch belongs in the
tree.  I'm not saying I believe it doesn't, I'm saying I'm just not positive
it does.  So life goes on.

Best Regards,

Duane Whitty