On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:13:03PM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:08:06PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:01:08PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote: > > > What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify > > > as a bug? > > > > WTF ? What's the point of free software if we invent rules for not > > modifying them ? And well, we're in a bad posture then, because glibc > > without patches can't work. Striving for minimal differences is good, > > but deciding a change is a bug ? please… > > You should read after the first sentence. Okay, still I dislike the idea a lot. the BTS is unusable past 100 bugs. For some packages this will add 100 more, that will never go away. And upstreams wont want to use yetanother bug tracker, they want to use theirs (especially the ones using RT or BZ that ensure this way never to recieve too many patches… *cough*). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpbuN83SWiNq.pgp
Description: PGP signature