Bug#791463: closing RFS: udfclient/0.8-1 [ITP] -- userland implementation of the UDF filesystem
On Thursday 17 December 2015 15:51:51 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 14 December 2015 12:37:24 Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > On 14/12/15 12:33, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 December 2015 18:04:06 Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > >> > you just dropping the patch into the right place.
> > > I know where and how. But I do not like idea to patching original source
> > > code if it is possible to compile and use it without patching.
> > >
> > > Using patches has problem for inconsistency and upgrading if original
> > > source code which patch modify changes.
> > >
> > > And also I see using patches as last option. Are not Debian want to
> > > reduce patches if they are not really needed?
> > I think it's appropriate to apply a patch (and submit it upstream) in
> > this case, as this is certainly a bug in the upstream makefile, and it
> > should be fixed.
> Ok. I can send patch to upstream project which fix compilation (on
> debian). But, what is wrong with my original (and current) version which
> use pmake and does not need patching original software?
So what is current state? I would like to know what is wrong with my
approach and if is really wrong...