| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni schrieb: |
| 2 |
> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD |
| 3 |
> changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies |
| 4 |
> for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are |
| 5 |
> required to make the necessary changes to add support for your |
| 6 |
> architecture. |
| 7 |
And what is going to happen with the patch? Should go upstream, but |
| 8 |
who's responsible for that? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> - Typo fixes |
| 11 |
> - SRC_URI changes - If the source has moved, feel free to fix it. We |
| 12 |
> shouldn't have to wait on the maintainer to fix something this simple. |
| 13 |
This isn't simple. I know a couple of packages where there's more than |
| 14 |
one upstream and there might be a good reason to not use the original |
| 15 |
one. But I admit that this is corner case. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> - metadata.xml changes |
| 18 |
With limitations. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild |
| 21 |
Just "cp"'ing the ebuilds is the reason that so many ebuilds are still a |
| 22 |
nightmare and full of little nasty bugs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This is a complete no-go since there are so many things a careful |
| 25 |
maintainer has to consider (besides checking the packages changelog, the |
| 26 |
dependencies, the license, the docs, etc. he should also check the ebuild). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
Tiziano |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives