Re: How easy is to derivatives to push upstream packages changes into Debian?
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:11 PM, adrian15 wrote:
> 1) So, there's an upstream package but this is not perfect.
> So, as a derivative you try to push your changes into the upstream
> software so that you don't have to maintain yourself.
> Some time later you find out your changes have not accepted but you
> still think they are useful for many people so you decide to push those
> same changes into Debian.
> Those bugs you had sent never get replied and, of course, those patches
> and RFEs never get applied into Debian package itself.
Sounds like some people are MIA or busy, options include:
Getting those patches included in the upstream project.
Becoming the new maintainer of the upstream project.
Forcefully becoming the new maintainer of the upstream project via forking.
Getting the Debian/Fedora/Gentoo/etc maintainers to switch to your fork.
Offering to the Debian maintainer to co-maintain the package.
Salvaging the Debian package and maintaining the package yourself.
Reporting the Debian maintainer as MIA:
> 2) As a Derivative developer do you find yourself often in this situation?
I find myself in this situation as both a Debian maintainer and
> Is there anything additional you do in order to push your changes into
All of the above, I usually try to avoid forking though.
> Maybe you adopt the package even if it's not an orphan package?
That is feasible, usually it is a good idea to discuss this with the
> Maybe you maintain your modified package in your repo?
That is a workaround that is usually feasible as long as upstream isn't active.
> Maybe you rename/fork the package as package-ng and try to push it into
> Debian as if it was a new package ?
Definitely do not rename to -ng, that is the most annoying thing in
the world of Free Software. Just keep the same name and fork it if you
> Maybe you send an email to package maintainer so that it declares the
> package orphan?
> 3) In case you are curious here's my current bugs / patches around
> chntpw package:
Please tag all of these bugs with the 'patch' tag, run this:
bts tag 803888 + patch
Or CC all of the bugs and include this first line:
Control: tags -1 + patch
I've pushed support for detecting this misspelling to lintian and codespell.
I think you could workaround the interactivity issues by wrapping the
executables in some pipes and or fake TTYs, for the situations where
the versions of the tools present don't have your patches.