On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:34 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > This would be great if maintainers were willing to fix issues after > the > fact. Look at rsync -- there's no incentive to fix the library issue > at > this point because rsync is already in the distribution. We need to > fix > this lack of incentive for other reasons -- but we need to fix it > before > we start trying to get more packages into the distro with less initial > quality. Sorry but the packager may have no way to influence upstream. And to be honest having a huge patch against rsync and/or zsync to extract a library against the will of the rsync and/or zsync upstream is contrary to fedora policy as (AFAIK). And yes I am the maintainer of rsync and I am not doing the job, because I don't want to have to create or maintain such patcheset until the day I am reasonably sure upstream will want such patches. Finally as ajax said, we need to be reasonable, I don't think this problem warrants blocking our acceptance of zsync. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
