| 1 |
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, |
| 8 |
> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which |
| 11 |
>> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it). If |
| 12 |
>> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak |
| 13 |
>> up. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about, |
| 16 |
> see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary. |
| 17 |
> Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in |
| 20 |
>> a different way... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem |
| 28 |
to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the |
| 29 |
package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc |
| 30 |
files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if |
| 31 |
there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a |
| 32 |
special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives