| 1 |
* Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Enrico I don't see why we may need to maintain separate ebuilds for |
| 4 |
> programs with patches scheduled upstream. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This all is part of a bigger strategy, we've already discussed here. |
| 7 |
See: http://www.metux.de/download/oss-qm-project-2010050101.pdf |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Submit important patches separately or, better, |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The whole idea is getting rid of individual patches, instead use a |
| 12 |
modern VCS. If you don't like to take the METUX.* branches, I'll be |
| 13 |
lucky to open (and even maintain) separate GENTOO.* branches. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> work with upstream so we'll get everything with next upstream release. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Actually, I'm already doing so for quite some time now. |
| 18 |
But often cannot/doesnt want to apply hotfixes ad-hoc. That's what |
| 19 |
OSS-QM for: provide downstream branches for distros, embedded |
| 20 |
maintainers, etc. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
cu |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 26 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
| 27 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 28 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
| 29 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
| 30 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
| 31 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
| 32 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives