Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mark wrote:
Redhat is eager to change things when they might get in trouble if
they have it in.. like codec support. You guys are killing out more
then enough in other packages to save your own asses and you tell us
that you want to follow upstream..
If a software is not included at all in Fedora, then there is no
modification and upstream is preserved as it is. For many others like
in the case of gstreamer, the extra codecs or functionality is
separated cleanly as plugins and we don't have to modify anything but
only pick and choose, what we can include. Only as a last resort, is
something patched and that is because it is the only legal choice at
that point. It is still a unfortunate divergence and adds a ongoing
maintenance overhead for the package maintainers. Adding more pain to
the problem doesn't make sense.
Refer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream
i agree on that with CODE changes.
i disagree on that with config changes! config things are just the the
values set by the creators that they think are best to use. That
doesn't make them THE best settings out there. Don't be so freaking
hard on config changes!
Code and configuration cannot be easily separated like this and
changes always have a associated cost. Atleast in one package I
maintain, a very small and simple configuration change resulted in a
potential security hole (only in rawhide for a short while but still ..)
Not in this case.
Here we can easily separate a default checkbox from code change.
I am just trying to get a clear signal out that there is something in
fedora that the people using fedora want to see different
It doesn't seem the right path to doing that, to me.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
