2009/9/15 Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. Looking through the mailing list archives, as far as I can tell, noone has tried this course of action yet: 1) Ask zlib upstream to accept the changes that the rsync devs made to zlib and issue a new release 2) Ask rsync upstream to support the new version of zlib 3) Ask zsync upstream to support the new version of zlib Surely that's the right solution, and the first thing that should be tried? Jonathan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
