Filing Hurd-porting patches in the BTS or upstream? (was: where do...)
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:51:07PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > I won't make such changes behind the upstream's back.
> > What do you mean with that?
> Exactly this. Bugfixes are okay, new features too as long as they do not
> break things. New operating systems - no go, since JS generaly cares
> about portability issues.
Maybe it is my fault that it happened this way.
I think I encouraged everyone to file every bug first as Debian bug report,
and leave it to the maintainer to decide what happens from there. This is
because it is simpler for us (we know the Debian bug address for each
package), and also because I didn't want to "circumvent" Debian on this
matter, trying to make it possible for everyone in Debian to take part into
the development of Debian GNU/Hurd, at least for the packages they
Independent of this specific bug report (I really only skimmed over it),
I am starting to reconsider this, and file porting problems upstream first.
Although the other GNU/Linux ports file them as Debian bugs AFAICS, it seems
that the Hurd-specific nature of the patches, and often the volume of changes
needed, is outweighing in costs the benefits listed above. But the Debian
BTS is really nice, and I like to use it to keep track of my porting work.
What do other people think on this issue?
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org firstname.lastname@example.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org