Subject: Re: Diverting from upstream> From: mark@borkware.net> To: crux@lists.crux.nu> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:59:35 +0200> > 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]:> > > > > > > > > One of my personal likings of CRUX is that it's easy to customize and> > > > > extend. Because it (used to?) keep as close to upstream as possible,> > > > > there tend to be fewer distribution-specific bugs.> > > > > > > > We _still_ do. But it's probably related to the fact that we don't read> > > > all of the code of the software we're packaging and that we don't fix> > > > any and all bug (-> Debian ;D).> > > > > > Totally fair, and that's also why I argue that keeping close to (if not> > > verbatim) upstream is the best bet for a project the size of CRUX.> > > > Sure, I think everyone agrees here.> > :)> > > > 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.)> > > > I think that recently there have been a growing number of patches in> > > core and opt - are upstreams just getting insane? I get the feeling that> > > the heavy patching is also the primary reason we're stucked with years> > > old versions of things such as grub.> > > > I don't share the feeling that core and opt are getting more patches> > recently. I'm not saying it's not true, I just didn't notice it.> > It could just be me being more sensitive to this :)> > > 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.> > The patches applied to 0.95 include additions of essential features such> as support for splash images, and there's so many that they're> distributed in an out-of-tree tarball!> > > > > > To avoid these kinds of distribution-specific problems, I'm kindly> > > > > asking packagers to think twice before deciding to divert from upstream> > > > > - perhaps even limiting it to "required for essential functioning of the> > > > > package" and basic CRUX integration (no nls, man-pages in /usr/man,> > > > > etc.) :)> > > > > > > > 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> on my day off) :)> I have to agree with this, and more than once, I've been bitten by the shadow port in particular. Just last night I was trying to update dbus, and when I went through the pre-install items (as distributed in the port's README), I couldn't execute useradd -n -g because of the port. Even removing the -n option still gave me an error about those two being mutually exclusive. I can figure it out, it's just that I don't want to. And I think the shadow patches may be to blame. If not, shouldn't the README in dbus be changed?
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG