Marc Lehmann, le Wed 09 Feb 2011 21:56:53 +0100, a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:48:36PM +0100, Samuel Thibault
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Marc Lehmann, le Thu 09 Dec 2010 12:30:03 +0100, a écrit :
> > > (*) debian has a long tradition of non-communication with upstream and
> > > deliberate bug-introducing patches,
> >
> > Please don't FUD.
>
> And how would you know?
Because that's written in the Debian policy:
"
4.3. Changes to the upstream sources
------------------------------------
If changes to the source code are made that are not specific to the
needs of the Debian system, they should be sent to the upstream
authors in whatever form they prefer so as to be included in the
upstream version of the package.
"
> Infatc, how would you even make this claim, if you
> could just sit down for a few minutes and check reality?
So far, I've mostly seen more good behavior that bad behavior.
> > Debian has a long tradition of requesting package maintainers to have
> > good relation with upstream and checking patches with upstream.
>
> Right, but as I said, debian also has a long tradition of
> non-communication with upstream and deliberately bug-introducing patches.
That's definitely not the case for the areas where I've been having a
look at: Xorg, kernel, accessibility, to name a few.
> This is trivially true for rxvt-unicode,
Sure, there are black sheeps. But don't make that a generic point,
i.e. FUD.
> Sure, debian requests package maintainers to do this and that, but it
> quite obviously utterly fails to do so.
>
> Contrast that with other distribution, like fedora, which have this
> as an explicit *policy* - no forks except under very very speivcifc
> circumstances.
It *is* in the policy.
> Sorry, samuel, you fail both the reality check and the theory check.
In the reality I have seen so far I haven't had seen so many
issues. Sure, there are examples of issues. Are there really _no_ such
examples in Fedora?!
> > There can always be black sheeps, that's not a reason to blame Debian as
> > a whole.
>
> The only one who blamed debian as a whole is you.
?!
> My mail, if you didn't notice, was about a speciifc bug in the urxvt
> package, for which debian *has* a long tradition of non-communication
> and deliberately introducing bugs.
There is a misunderstanding then: saying "Debian" definitely means the
whole Debian. If you wanted to mean the Debian maintainer of rxvt, then
say "the Debian maintainer".
> Or, even better, put your efforts where your mouth is, and don't harass
> poor upstream maintainers that continuously get abused by debian, and
> *only* debian.
Again, the problem at stake here is with the maintainer, not with Debian.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
