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...
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. 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.
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 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?