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.
For some packages there can be fedora
specific integration issues that upstream doesn't want to "fix".
Where does it say in Fedora (Core or Extras) policy that packages *require* special integration to be included?
Might I also quote another Fedora Objective, #3:
* Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the upstream packages
Which is exactly what pine's license forces you to do anyway.
Besdies, I'm arguing policy. The only policy I have found that applies here is the "open source" requirement of packages to be included in Fedora Extras.
Perhaps another policy should be added to the Fedora Objectives at the end about what it won't do:
* If enough people (especially those on the fedora-devel mailing list) "just don't like" the package in question, it won't be allowed in Fedora Core/Extras.
(I'm joking, of course, but only a little).
Peter already touch on one such potential situation regarding mbox
corruption.
I would treat that the same as any other bug, and I'd certainly home the upstream software developers would work just as hard to fix this one as any other.
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.
I didn't say anything about packages that dis-allow modified binary redistibution. I said waiting for upstream fixes to bugs and security issues. Many, many, Fedora packages don't get bugs fixed until that happens. I was drawing a parallel comparison.
-- Rex
