[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: moto4lin, I give up.

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.


Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]