[Pidgin] #1102: Pidgin breaks blist.xml

[Pidgin]

#1102: Pidgin breaks blist.xml
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  czarny      |       Owner:  nwalp 
      Type:  defect      |      Status:  closed
  Priority:  minor       |   Milestone:  2.1.0 
 Component:  libpurple   |     Version:  2.0   
Resolution:  worksforme  |    Keywords:  blist 
   Pending:  0           |  
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment (by elb):

 Replying to [comment:18 czarny]:
 > I'm disgusted with the way bugs are treated here. 'It's not a pidgin
 error, it's your filesystems error', 'It's not pidgins error, it's
 obviously your OS-s error'.

 Please explain to me what you do not understand about this, and I will try
 to clarify it for you.  I pointed you to the section of code which is
 concerned, and it is (to the best of our ability to discern) correct.  We
 even go so far as to stat the file after closing it, to make sure it is of
 the correct size.  I have NO IDEA what we can do to make this better.  At
 some point, short of writing your own disk drivers and doing direct
 hardware access, you HAVE to trust the operating system to handle certain
 things correctly; in this case, it is obvious that Windows is not (for
 whatever reason) doing so.

 If you can show me a solution that fixes this problem, I will gladly apply
 it.  However, it is clear that the operating system is violating
 agreements (POSIX filesystem semantics, specifically) here, and there is
 very little we can do in the face of that.

 If you do not understand this problem, please do not be rude and
 insulting; explain what you do not understand, and we will attempt to
 clarify.

 > A formal bug reply: "Change FS" or "Change OS"?
 >
 > So when I submit a bug concerning memory allocation I'll get a reply,
 that the pidgins code is superb, but libc is wrongly implemented?

 If, for example, malloc() returns the same memory area twice, then YES.
 And that is the sort of bug which is happening here.  There is some
 measure of correctness which an application MUST be able to trust in the
 underlying operating system.

 > If you won't reply to Windows bugs, as
 > "Windows is too unstable to prevent that" and you "suggest installing an
 operating system" why the fuck do you support that OS? Either don't
 support it at all (including removing windows binaries from the main
 site), or live with what the systems got and start working round the
 instabilities of the OS you support.

 I would love to drop Windows support entirely, but it is not up to me.

 > The same goes with FS change. Either write on the main site, that you
 support only a specific configuration of a linux box (and I'm sure I'll
 get something like 'Install a decent distro: Debian/Ubuntu' in that note),
 or start supporting all FS-es and be flexible enough to provide the users
 with a satisfying software.

 If there are similarly buggy filesystems on Linux, we would certainly give
 the same reply.  (I am not aware of any, but they may exist.)

 > The "We're doing everything right, it's the world that is wrong"
 attitude is unacceptable!

 Do you, or do you not, understand the code that I directed you to?  If so,
 please tell me how it is wrong, and we will fix it.  If not, please do not
 assert that we are at fault -- because as best we can tell, we are not.

 Ethan

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/1102#comment:20>
Pidgin <http://pidgin.im>
Pidgin