Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:39:07AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> >... glibc without patches can't work.
>>
>> Isn't this the best support for Joey's proposal?
>> A software which does not work without patches is IMHO buggy.
>
> Do you have a proposal for a remplacement of the glibc then?
Why would you want to replace it? The proposal is about tracking the
required patches in the BTS. Not about removing them.
> And note we *do* forward patches we apply to the Debian Glibc, which is
> not always something pleasant to do, especially when it concerns
> "embedded crap" [1]: at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get
> insults.
Wouldn't it be nice to have those attempts and insults archived for
other people to see? That way when something like the OpenSSL
catastrophe hits you you can point to the BTS and show what discussion
went on with upstream.
> That's why I personally don't want another level of administrative task
> like proposed by Joey Hess, which won't improve things in that case. We
> already have hundreds of bugs to fix in the Debian Glibc package, I
> don't want to waste my time.
I don't think tagging a bug is so much work. And for a team maintained
package it would make things more transparent for everyone. You
already need to coordinate sending patches upstream in some way. Why
not use the BTS?
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: