Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > time is simply not acceptable at all to upstream and should not be > forwarded at this time. (This based on discussion with Jerry @ UDS, in > which he stated it was upstream's policy to not enable additional features > by default but that it was fine for distros to make such changes.)
OK, that sounds fair. Some day, I would like to propose a policy for naming patches to easily distinguish those that are Debian-specific, those that could go in upstream but don't for upstream's policy reasons and that that should go to upstream. More or less somethign like this. Need to get more ideas, but that has proven to be useful for shadow. > So since the only forwardable bit of the patch is a few minor grammar fixes > in the manpages, I don't see any point in splitting this into multiple > patches as that won't make it any easier to manage in the repo. That would make it easier to think about forwarding things upstream. Yeah, this is only minor stuff, but I prefer us to forward the glitches we or our users find rather than wait for an hypothetical review..... And you know that my Ultimate Goal in Life is having zero-size debian/patches directories..:-) (immediately after having all French translations at 100%) So, well, I keep the right to split the patch anyway. After all, that doesn't hurt kittens....
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
