Rahul Sundaram write:
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
I'm afraid I don't completely understand you. About what maintenance
load you are speaking?
Is there any polices or guidelines about it?
Any upstream deviation usually causes a higher maintenance load since
the downstream patch set has to be re-based for every upstream release.
For a active project like Apache, you should focus on getting the
patches integrated upstream and benefiting all downstream distributions
and not just Fedora.
For guidelines and policies refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream
Hello Rahul,
Thank you for the big work what you make writing this document (second
link). And most of this things is basically known.
As I mention above, what about your first link - main apache rpm package
fully ignore this guidelines!
But why you are not consider Steinar H. Gunderson as upstream amintainer
of apache mpm-itk???
In any case, as maintainer of package I take care about maintenance load
by this rpm. As I remember, it had not any urgent issues with adaptation
to current releases of apache for the past year or even more.
P.S. I'm write mail to Steinar H. Gunderson with question why it is not
in upstream...
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
