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

Re: Proposal: user-visible list of divergences from upstream

Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> writes:
>> I failed to fetch a human-readable patch info for psi in testing from
>> patch-tracking.debian.net, for example.
> Okay, take another example then:
> http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/ffmpeg-debian
Well, how can users go this site? Is it described in debian policy,
devreference, some user docs?

>> Also, it would be better to combine several patch into one
>> user-visible change in some cases, some patches may not be not
>> "listed" at all; typos' fixes in documentation are good, but not too
>> serious changes to end users, for example.
> I think it is rather hard to draw a line here, because it very much
> depends on the POV of the user. End-users are likely not interested in
> the source of a program, they want to use it. (Prospective) Maintainers
> and upstreams of the package are interested in seeing all patches
> anyways. What kind of users would be interested only in "end-user
> visible" changes and is it worth the efford of the maintainer to decide
> on this?
(suppose) I'm a system administrator. I have received new production
mail server. My only choice is a stable well-maintained distribution.
Last release for RedHat contains exim 1.5.19, and Debian version is
1.5.18. I know about recently found security bug in 1.5.18. What
distribution I will choose without official acknowledge that Debian's
source for 1.5.18 already have a backported fix for bug?

Well, for security bugs Debian have DSAs. But for other non-security
fixes and improvements came to stable release?

Many users don't except at all that Debian patches upstream when needed.

Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: