Re: Bug#846903: ITP: node-has-gulplog -- Check if gulplog is available before attempting to use it
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 04.12.2016 15:47, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > Those of us feeling weird can go through the list here [1] and see
> > which of those are weird and help create a patch for their parent
> > module and convince their upstream to use a patch instead. If you
> > can't convince them, maintaining a fork would be fine too.
>
> You'd think that the effort to package up [1] would be more than to
> patch the software using it.
Patching upstream source always makes more work (especially long-term)
than packaging unmodified upstream source. Patched upstream source
incurs technical debt. Getting the fix accepted upstream eliminates that
technical debt, and if upstream will take the fix and just add a hard
dependency on gulplog, that seems like an improvement. But if upstream
won't take the patch, then packaging a tiny script seems *far* easier
than maintaining a permanent fork to avoid it.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: