On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote: > > > And I don't hear much complaints about the distro-patching from > > > developers (exceptions: Jörg Schilling for example). A bit going > > > further, I think that "patchability" is one of the main power of > > > open source; and I see nothing wrong (fundamentally) in the common > > > practice, that distros supply "mini-fork" packages to satisfy their > > > users' taste in the heterogeneous linux community (some users like > > > eye-candy others are minimalistic etc). Usually I enjoy _usable_ > > > "vanilla" packages (that's why I am AL user). > > > > > > > Again, when there is a really unusable / broken package, it's very > > likely not because of the vanilla philosophy, but because of the lack > > of time of developers. > > And as far as I am concerned, Arch provides working packages, so I > > would say it's doing pretty well overall. There are probably > > exceptions that confirm the rule, but that's life, nothing is > > perfect :) > > > > Yes, I would like to believe, that you are right here. But the mc bug I > showed you was _closed_ by reasoning: 'Implemented/Merged upstream'. > And the same reasoning for this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5546 > > Bye > Even if it was merged upstream the mc package in extra is 2 years old. Maybe you could try requesting to replace it by the most recent snapshot. I have used it for a while and it seemed totally usable, even though i didnt test it thoroughly. Its from sometime in 2007 IIRC so chances are the patch in the bug report is part og the source. Greg
