Re: [gnu.misc.discuss,gnu.emacs.gnus] Free software: Packagers vs Developers
What about another example besides queso?
Debian's Ghostscript comes with the popular HP-Deskjets patches that the
upstream maintainer has chosen not to use, despite their being the best
drivers for many HP-Deskjets. Users want them - if the Debian package
didn't include them, I would be forced to build it in /usr/local. And they
don't provide much of upstream burden - it's like a new machine desciption
for gcc, entirely self-contained.
(XFSTT (TrueType) patches for X are another example, or would be if they
hadn't been removed for not being 64-bit clean.)
But you would have us not include it for the developer's sake, which isn't
acceptable to the end users. If it happened that the ghostscript packager
chose not to include those patches, gs-hpdj would be created. If Debian put
your guidelines in policy, I or someone else would create a unofficial
package. I find it totally resonable for a maintainer to include small,
bug-fix patches and large independent patches with seperate upstream
maintainers, so long as they are self contained.
David Starner - firstname.lastname@example.org (alternately email@example.com)
"I would weep, but my tears have been stolen; I would shout, but my voice
has been taken. Thus, I write." - Tragic Poet