Diverting from upstream

Tilman Sauerbeck tilman at crux.nu
Fri Sep 8 12:56:28 UTC 2006


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?
-------------- 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/a4b1c18a/attachment.asc>


More information about the CRUX mailing list