On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:41:14 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote: > What worries me is that pyroscope has a "rtorrent-extended" interface, > which is just application of some patches to the original rtorrent > source. It even uses the rtorrent tars, the code isn't forked or > anything. What exactly you plan to package (and how and with which name) is not known yet, isn't it? I'm not familiar with the status for "pyrocore" and other parts of pyroscope. Pyroscope is not just the patched rtorrent UI. It's a collection of stuff, e.g. additional scripts. Btw, earlier you wrote: | It adds quite a lot of functionality to rtorrent. Does it matter whether it modifies the source code via patches or in its own tree? In its present form it's a fork. > Therefore, we will end up maintaining two copies of rtorrent > in a way (the original and the extended (original + patches)). Should > this be done? Such questions are difficult to answer. Ask yourself: Does rtorrentExtended (or whatever you plan to package, e.g. extra scripts/tools) offer enough extra stuff to be packaged as an alternative? Are you interested enough in rtorrent to comaintain it, since you would depend on it anyway? Is the project active enough to update their patches whenever an important or security relevant rtorrent release becomes available? Do you think this thing is maintainable with its dependency on the rtorrent source? > I'm not sure why these patches haven't been added to rtorrent upstream > yet. I'm looking into it. Good idea. That may answer the question whether rtorrentExtended is supposed to be a fork or whether it is just a set of proposed experimental patches that will be applied upstream eventually. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.7-1.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.43 0.19 0.24 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
