Upstream bug in log4cpp

[Cantor, Scott]

On 3/28/12 11:23 PM, "Russ Allbery" <rra at debian.org> wrote:

>I should probably bring that up in debian-devel first because of the code
>duplication.  I'm sure someone will ask if there's any way of merging the
>projects; I assume that's pretty much at the same spot it was several
>years ago, where they seemed basically uninterested in the issues you were
>raising?

Well, I know for a fact I sent them this fix years ago, but it's obviously
never been applied. I think somebody else reported it to their tracker
here:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2826590&group_id=15190&atid
=115190

At the time I forked they were just not there to listen. A new maintainer
woke up shortly after I forked, and that resulted in the 1.0 release, but
they left out some of my makefile fixes, and the threading fixes had
diverged so that I couldn't compare them easily.

I was struggling so much with packaging that I got tired of dealing with
projects that didn't do any testing or QA on Solaris or Mac. The other
project that was in a similar state was xml-security, and I'm now the
maintainer, so that was where my options were. I probably could have just
stepped in on this one too, but I was stopping short of that step at the
time.

>(Given the lack of a new release, I wonder if log4cpp is really
>effectively orphaned.)

Maybe they object to the label, but I have a different standard, I guess.
Xerces itself is pretty bad from my perspective, but I would stop short of
calling it orphaned. This is well within my definition.

-- Scott