Mark Rosenstand [2006-09-08 12:59]:
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 12:25 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Mark Rosenstand [2006-09-08 11:53]:
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:27 +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Mark Rosenstand [2006-09-08 10:44]:
Unfortunately I've had to fork some opt packages lately. For example, I depend largely on GTK+ (GNOME desktop) so I just don't dare to patch it for something I have no clue what does (http://crux.nu/svnweb/CRUX/revision?rev=1701)
You could had asked Matt, Johannes, or me about it (it was kinda a group effort to get that bug nailed :) The patch has been incorporated into GTK+ 2.10.2, btw. See the changelog for the bug ID (it's tiny, I'm too lazy to look it up right now).
I think it's safe to assume that your GTK maintainer depends largely on GTK+/Gnome, too...
I think applying that patch was the right thing to do...
If it was a bug fix, sure! The problem is that there were no description of what it did, "added cptn's modified stock icon patch" doesn't tell much. The fact that it fixed a bug, and preferably what bug it fixed as well as it was applied upstream would have been really nice additions to that commit message. (This is a general problem, I think. Take http://crux.nu/svnweb/CRUX/revision/?rev=1678 for instance.)
Putting BTS IDs/references in commit comments and patch file names seems like a good idea.
Regarding grub - the version we're using isn't actively developed anymore AFAIK. Switching to the new development branch seems a bit risky to me. I'd rather stick to the old version here.
I'm all for sticking to the widely used 0.x branch, but 0.95 is 2.5 years old and 0.97 have been available for more than a year.
Okay, file a bug for this.
Uh uh, I actually thought twice before doing that Openbox commit. I even contact upstream, ziomg! ;)
Ah, true, you said that. I shouldn't have used that as an example, it was rather a case of "shit happens" :)
The autoconf 2.60 mandir patch was probably a better example.
Agreed, that was a bit silly. We also already discussed that matter ;) I don't see how one case of "shit happens" and one case of sillyness shows a trend of messing up opt ;D
Those were just the ones on the top of my head, but I have to admit that I don't understand what all the shadow patches are for. Some comments in the patch headers or in the Pkgfile would be warmly welcomed - after all there's a lot of tinkerers in the CRUX crowd (cruwd? OK, no more coffee
Okay. Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?