| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
| On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
|>Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either. |
| 7 |
|>Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported |
| 8 |
|>to get upstream interested? |
| 9 |
| |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a |
| 12 |
| catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and |
| 13 |
| upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a |
| 14 |
| continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed |
| 15 |
| months ago. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Upstream CVS is the location for testing, not distros. Distributions |
| 18 |
should have a _more_ stable version of packages than unreleased CVS, not |
| 19 |
less. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In addition, we're in the business of packaging source, not maintaining |
| 22 |
source. Taking on maintainance of all the source we package is |
| 23 |
unrealistic and is not why I do Gentoo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Donnie |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iD8DBQFDgYelXVaO67S1rtsRAq6lAJ9aINu0FvPT9k+gYYXeRinsm6Ua/ACfb2bD |
| 31 |
yKSOWhYljy2aCMVOfz0aaRo= |
| 32 |
=nsW6 |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives