[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: divergence from upstream as a bug



On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:24:10AM +0000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre, please fix your MUA to honour the request I made earlier: stop
> sending individual copies of messages that you also send to the Debian
> lists. It's a request in the mailing list guidelines, and I've
> explicitly pointed it out earlier.

  FFS let's do not a mua and m-f-t wars. Set your MFT and my MUA will
honour that.

> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:57:02AM +0000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> >   But it's NOT ABOUT Debian package maintainers.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself; in the earlier message I quoted
> above, *you* raised the issue of "requires more work from the
> maintainer". I was responding directly to that point. If you don't
> think the effect on maintainers is relevant, I don't see why you
> raised it in the first place.

  huh you don't get it. It requires more work from the maintainer, _and_
gives nothing to upstream. But the problem we want to solve is making
things easier for upstreams. And it doesn't, at the cost of *OUR* time
that is already soo scarce.

> >   More administrivia is never an improvement. See (yeah I know it's
> > always about the glibc, but well … that's a very good example for the
> > discussion) in the glibc we have
> > debian/patches/$arch/$state-$subject.patches. For $state in
> > {submitted,local,cvs}. submitted means its sent upstream, local means
> > that it's not, cvs that it's a cherry-pick from upstream. Why on earth
> > would we need to write that in _yet another place_ ?
> 
> Again, the BTS is not "yet another place"; it's already a place where
> Debian-specific information needs to be about other changes to the
> package. It's a proposal to *consolidate* information into a place
> that already has much similar information for similar purposes,
> instead of having that information scattered in many places.

  *g* you absolutely miss my point. Upstream *DON'T* go to our BTS
except in very rare case, because they don't really care about Debian
more than say fedora, gentoo, $distro.

> >   What Joey's proposal is:
> >   * put more burden on the maintainers that already report patch
> >     upstream ;
> 
> Are these maintainers not recording the fact of a bug in the BTS?

  When it's fixed in Debian ? What's the point ?

> This assumes that 'debian/patches' is a known standard interface for
> all Debian packages, which I would think it clearly isn't in light of
> previous threads here. The Debian BTS, on the other hand, *is* a known
> standard interface for all Debian packages.

  debian/patches is the proper place to put your changes. the BTS is the
proper place to track _actual_ bugs in Debian. Not the one that are
fixed in Debian and not upstream's. upstream BTSes are made for that.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpePRbMu2NCC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: