On 03/01/2014 17:46, Martin S. Weber wrote: > Sermons from packager from pkg systems A, B, C, D (...) > sooner or later provoke ignorance from upstream dev (...). No sermons should ever be made to upstream by packagers. Upstream should not be blamed for bugs, but helped with. This is free software, let's just try to be nice to each other. > In other words again: you might find what you consider a bug, but upstream > will not care, ignore your patches, not listen to you or simply get annoyed > (witnessed instances of this before). As you've said, the packagers should provide the patch to fix the issue. If upstream does not want that then it's fine, the packager should use the "trick". I hardly understand why would any upstream refuse a patch to fix parallel build issues. > Read e.g. this message from the author of SQLite and fossil about packager's > need/want for splitting dynamic libs from projects using said dynamic libs > (sqlite in that instance): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg14153.html I'm not sure this issue is related to the current discussion, as he is upset with distributions packaging old software with new one, something never done in Arch as far as I know: > I hate having to add silly work-arounds in the code to accommodate > distributions trying to use an older SQLite with a newer Fossil. And I think I remember that Arch does have static libraries when it makes sense. > IMHO you're just about to open a can of worms that only you yourself will > want to swallow, for a) the greater good of squishing bugs and b) no change > in the big picture. There is nothing to "swallow" here as there already is an option to bypass parallel build. I'm not opening anything either as I'm just not against the proposed change. It looks like a convenience change, which does not really have arguments against it as it's just a default setting. -- Timothée Ravier
