* Gergely Nagy <algernon@debian.org> [2001-10-17 23:45]:
> That might happen. Still, I find it cleaner to work around it from
> debian/rules in the Debian package _and_ sand a proper fix upstream,
> so both parties benefit.
Then you have to double check when a new upstream source is coming up.
If you patch the upstream source the uupdate with simply refuse to patch
that file and you won't have to remove anything (check anyway).
I personally think it's more comfortable, and also states for the users
simply that the upstream is buggy. Fixing upstream sources isn't that
bad, after all. Not everything can be done from within debian/rules and
in this respect I think it might be better and cleaner to state that
it's an upstream bug by modifying the upstream.
YMMV, and this discussion maybe will never end, and I don't think that
this is really a decision we should write down. Both ways are correct
to their point of view - the essence nevertheless is, that people should
know what they are doing and why they are doing it, including
alternatives.
So long,
Alfie
--
You never learn anything | /"""""\ ,'~~.
by doing it right. | / chaos \ alfie.ist.org |o ?~\
-- unknown | \inside!/ alfie@ist.org /_ ~<\
| \_____/ \__,~ \>
Attachment:
pgp2uMci8iJG3.pgp
Description: PGP signature