On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:37:01 -0500 (CDT), Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I disagree. I would argue that having to wait for upstream fixes > certainly does *not* imply a package in unmaintainable. It depends on the situation that needs fixing. We could wax eloquent about the hypothetical situations beyond what peter has already mentioned for a long while. For some packages there can be fedora specific integration issues that upstream doesn't want to "fix". Peter already touch on one such potential situation regarding mbox corruption. And as a policy, letting in packages with licenses that prevent patching at the packaging level is overly restrictive burdon on the Fedora community who might need to make distribution integration changes to upstream programs. I think you have a different definition of maintenance, that I have. Mine includes making an effort to make sure the the project integrates smoothly with Fedora specifically. Pine's license doesn't allow for any level of integration tweaking and thats a real problem. > You just wait for upstream fixes. Maybe, oh maybe, you (or I as packager) > could even join pine's mailing lists, and be able to know the development > progress of bugs/fixes. I'd bet you can't tell me there currently exists > no packages in Fedora Core/Extras that doesn't have to wait to upstream > fixes. The burden is on you... find a package in Core/Extras with a license that dis-allows modified binary redistribution. Its one thing for people in the community to choose to wait for upstream to patch, its quite another to be told via license restriction that the community does not have a choice. I bet there are lots of examples of packages in Core/Extras where patches to upstream have been directly applied instead of being waited for. As a matter of policy its vital to make sure the option to patch at the packaging level is there. -jef
