Re: forking source: dcc
On 17-Jul-04, 08:34 (CDT), Russell Coker <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:28, Martin Michlmayr <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In that case we should rename cron. Paul Vixie has not contributed any code
> to it for a long time AFAIK. We should also start incrementing the program
> version number (83 Debian revisions should justify at least a version 3.1).
> I think that the least confusing thing to do might be to rename cron as the
> Greenland cron and refer to it as a derivative of Vixie cron.
> Steve, I hope you don't mind me using you as an example. I think that what
> you have done is a good example of how to maintain a project without an
> upstream developer.
Without in any way objecting to the point you're making or general
position you're taking (which I agree with), I'm not sure you'd call my
maintainership of cron a "good example". Adequate, perhaps.
To be fair to Paul, he has expressed willingness to accept patches from
me, and I've not had/taken the time to separate and prepare the patches.
Hmmm, I went to look and see that there is now actually a cron 4.1 that
appears (based on the very brief changelog) to include some of the
generic fixes that the BSD folks did (and which have been merged with
the Debian version). I guess I need to look at 4.1 and see what it would
take to make it look like our version was based on it rather than 3.1.
And actually, cron is not something that should have such a big Debian
specific drift. What *should* have happened is that when the various
Linux and BSD distributions saw that Paul, being much more involved
with BIND and ISC business issues, was not going to have time to keep
upstream cron up-to-date, was develop our own central "upstream" work,
with actual distribution specific patches kept locally. But we didn't.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net