Patches and Upstream (was: Patch to fix FTBFS of pvm on GNU/Hurd)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Patches and Upstream (was: Patch to fix FTBFS of pvm on GNU/Hurd)
- From: <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:01:26 +0200
- Message-id: <20110516140123.GC325@alien.local>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110414221004.GS7047@const.famille.thibault.fr> <4DA77E59.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110508165635.GI325@alien.local> <email@example.com> <20110509095020.GO325@alien.local> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:43:58AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> One problem so far is how to write the patches to please the DMs. The
> comments you get varies. Sometimes it is easier to communicate with
Indeed, if an active upstream exists, and the best approach to take is
not obvious, it's best to talk to upstream directly -- after all,
ultimately it's them how will have to approve the patch anyways...
It's more tricky of course for packages without an upstream.
> it is frustrating to see how much of the very good time and effort
> people spend by writing patches, and then see them hanging in the BTS
> forever. Do you have any good solution to propose?
I'm not a Debian developer myself; but from I have gathered, an NMU is
appropriate in such cases...
> Maybe I should apply to be a DM myself or at least do the packaging
> and having a supporting DM as uploader.
That would definitely make things easier -- especially regarding NMUs