On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:01:51PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > 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. I'd still file it through the BTS but offer to work with upstream yourself, particularly if the patch is invasive. If nothing else this means other Hurd porters can see that a given package has already been looked at and means you can hopefully get help from maintainers with dealing with upstream. One thing I have noticed with some of the patches for Hurd that I've seen is that porters sometimes take advantage of glibc features that aren't widely avaliable. This obviously makes it more difficult to use the patches - upstream may well care about portability beyond glibc-based operating systems. I'd suggest encouraging porters to check that functions they use are widely avaliable (often the man pages have a fairly good overview of which standards things conform to). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Description: PGP signature