On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Do you have a proposal for a remplacement of the glibc then?
> And note we *do* forward patches we apply to the Debian Glibc, which is > not always something pleasant to do, especially when it concerns > "embedded crap" [1]: at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get > insults. Has using eglibc.org as upstream been considered? Forking is a valid option when upstream is as hostile and unco-operative as glibc's is. > That's why I personally don't want another level of administrative task > like proposed by Joey Hess, which won't improve things in that case. It seems very debian way - fix collaboration problems with policies and bureacracy.. I would propose that maintainers can suggest alternative collobarion models with upstream as well. Such as maintaing the delta against upstream in VCS branch of upstream, maintaining a policy that packager will only include patches that are already in committed upstream VCS, or extreme cases declaring that the debian packaging is a fork of upstream. -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
