On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:28 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> On 09/16/2009 08:59 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: >> > Am 16.09.2009 17:47, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi: >> > >> >> That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked rsync >> >> upstream to make their fork publicly available instead of hoarding >> >> it as a private, internal copy. >> > >> > I would ask, why the modification will not integrated in the >> > 'official' Fedora zlib package? >> > >> > After this integration the fedora maintainer can forward the pach to >> > the upsream author. >> > >> And a short followup -- I've gone through the zlib-devel mailing list >> archives now. I was unable to find any request for the rsync patches to >> be merged into mainline zlib. The mailing list archives only go back to >> March 2002, so it could be that the request to merge came before that >> directly to one of the zlib authors. But if so, there's not a record of >> what problems, if any, there were with the patch. > > My follow-up on this: I'm pursuing two tracks. > > I've mailed zlib maintainers directly - they specifically ask for > questions to be sent to a direct email address rather than the > zlib-devel list - to ask what their position is on this, so we can get > some clarity there. I will pass on what (if anything) I hear back from > them. > > Secondly, where would be the appropriate place to propose accepting > zsync with the internal zlib? Is that something I should bring to the > packaging committee? fesco ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
