Diverting from upstream

Tilman Sauerbeck tilman at crux.nu
Fri Sep 8 10:25:31 UTC 2006


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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.crux.nu/pipermail/crux/attachments/20060908/91dc36c7/attachment.asc>


More information about the CRUX mailing list