moto4lin, I give up.

[Richi Plana]

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. 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.
--

Richi Plana