Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
* Bastian Blank <firstname.lastname@example.org> [080518 15:17]:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:44:49PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > I'd suggest to start with making pristine upstream tarballs (or pure
> > subsets of those) obligatory. No modifications allowed in there and no
> > exceptions.
> How would you define "no modifications"?
I think we already have a definition for that.
> Even a subset already implies modifications.
That's why I explicitly mentioned it. That is what repacking is supposed
to be limited to. (and doing this in itself is quite limited at least by
the text of the devref)
> But what about a snapshot from $VCS_OF_THE_DAY? The exists no pristine tarball.
When no upstream exists then obviously putting the available stuff in
one (or using one of the available methods like make dist) is the obviously the
> And if someone really wants to do that he
> may pull the source unmodified from its own fork which is resynchronized
> for each version.
I'm not against forks. But who forks should also accept upstream
Bernhard R. Link