Re: Complaint about #debian operator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> writes:
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> >> This says you are wrong:
>> >> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
>> > So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one, I'd be
>> > contributing to Fedora? Cool! That'll bolster my CV a bit.
>> If Fedora were using the same packaging system so that the packaging diffs
>> were meaningful, you separated out the diffs for the upstream source and
>> the diffs for packaging, and you continued doing this on a regular basis
>> so that Fedora maintainers could see what changes were made in Debian that
>> they might be interested... yes, you would indeed be contributing to
> As absurd as Andrew's comparison may seem, the diffs distributed from
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ are pretty underwhelming as far as
> "contributing back to Debian" is concerned.
I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
corresponding patch filed in the BTS, but I have found it useful a
couple of times in the past. OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu
patches which were blatantly wrong, where the maintainer clearly
didn't grok the package they were changing.
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----