On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:38:02 +1000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > If he wants to deal with it, he can prepare a patch that the apt > maintainer thinks is suitable for inclusion in apt. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking about *this* particular case. I'm speaking in general. While what I say may be true about this particular case, I know neither the maintainer of apt, nor the patch submitter well enough to judge. End disclaimer.) What you just said assumes that the maintainer will accept a patch if it of good quality. If the patch adds any features, and they consider the package "feature-complete" and reject the patch as such, then what's left except for a fork? If they don't read email, what's left? If they have some Issues with having code authored by other people in their application, what then? I think I've made my point :) It happens often enough that patches just get ignored for whatever reason that special action should be discussed and taken. The forks I've seen started because the original maintainer wouldn't accept a patch for some silly reason. After a while, the forks merged. -- ________________________________________________________________________ \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / eelf@sympatico.ca, elf@terrabox.com | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \======================================================================/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachment:
pgp9TWFCYHVn3.pgp
Description: PGP signature