Chris Gianelloni schrieb:
- arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD
changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies
for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are
required to make the necessary changes to add support for your
architecture.
And what is going to happen with the patch? Should go upstream, but
who's responsible for that?
- Typo fixes
- SRC_URI changes - If the source has moved, feel free to fix it. We
shouldn't have to wait on the maintainer to fix something this simple.
This isn't simple. I know a couple of packages where there's more than
one upstream and there might be a good reason to not use the original
one. But I admit that this is corner case.
- metadata.xml changes
With limitations.
- Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild
Just "cp"'ing the ebuilds is the reason that so many ebuilds are still a
nightmare and full of little nasty bugs.
This is a complete no-go since there are so many things a careful
maintainer has to consider (besides checking the packages changelog, the
dependencies, the license, the docs, etc. he should also check the ebuild).
Cheers,
Tiziano
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
