moto4lin, I give up.
Andrew Haley
aph at redhat.com
Fri Dec 28 18:19:52 UTC 2007
Richi Plana writes:
> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 11:52 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > dragonauta x writes:
> > > I give up...
> > > (to resume: moto4lin doesn't work well with +2 drives, but SVN
> > > version does)
> > > This is what I got on bugzilla:
> > > "I'm sorry, but this is still an upstream issue. The fact
> > > that the upstream author has a patch that fixes this problem
> > > but is not releasing it in an official release does not make
> > > this a packaging issues, IMHO.
> > >
> > > It is my position that bugs like this need to be fixed by an
> > > upstream release, particularly in cases like this. Because
> > > upstream fixes help all distributions, and Fedora,
> > > effectively, forking it does not.
> > >
> > > I don't believe it is Fedora's place to be tracking svn. Does
> > > the upstream maintainer have a good reason for not having a
> > > real release that fixes this?
> > >
> > > If someone from fedora-devel thinks this should be tracking
> > > SVN, they should re-open this and take assignment on the bug."
> > >
> > > Thanks anyway.
> >
> > I don't get it. Where's the problem? Upstream refuses to
> > produce an update?
>
> Please don't oversimplify the issue. Just because upstream refuses, for
> whatever reason, to come up with a release doesn't mean packagers should
> refuse to package up a copy from VCS, particularly if it's been made
> reproducible.
I dunno. That sounds like a very good reason to me. Otherwise Fedora
would have to maintain a fork, which really isn't a good plan. It
isn't the job of a Fedora packager to maintain a fork.
If it's really so important to get this fixed, it needs to be fixed
across all distros. If there hasn't been a release for three years,
the package needs to be orphaned or someone who cares needs to start
maintaining a fork that can become the new upstream.
> Upstream has their own agenda and packagers carry a bigger
> responsibility to the PACKAGE'S USERS. If the packager doesn't want
> to do the extra work, then say so, and hopefully a comaintainer
> will package it. But don't refuse it on principle.
> The fact remains that there is a fix and upstream isn't making it
> difficult at all to package. So why drag one's feet? If this were a
> trivial patch (cosmetic), I'd understand the reluctance. But bugs
> which break normal functionality I consider pretty up there.
I think we need to know why upstream is not packaging this fix in an
official release.
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list