On 08/28/2015 02:11 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Hi > > I am building software for misc distributions for over 11 years. And so > far Fedora packages are the worst of those I played with (mostly > OpenEmbedded and Debian). > > Why? Because patches are mess. Let's take random one: > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ > M = int(max(r, g, b)) > m = int(min(r, g, b)) > val = (2 * M + r + g + b) / 5 > - p[:] = (val + r) / 2, (val + g) / 2, (val + b) / 2 > + #p[:] = (val + r) / 2, (val + g) / 2, (val + b) / 2 > if alpha[y][x] >= 250: > alpha[y][x] = 255 - (M - m) * 3 / 4 > del pixels > > Who knows what it does and why? For some reason it has a name '64bitfix' > but why it is needed? Did upstream ever saw it? No idea. > > In Debian (or in OpenEmbedded) it is solved by implementing DEP-3 [1] In reality, here's what the Debian version of this patch looks like: <http://sources.debian.net/src/monsterz/0.7.1-8/debian/patches/010_64-bit-alignment-issues-with-python2.5.diff/> I'm not sure if it's all that more helpful, to be honest. It does not follow DEP-3, sure, but neither do many other Debian packages. Even some critical server packages still do not have any broken-out patches at all. (In general, if there is no upstream to contribute such fixes to, it's probably best not to ship such software at all.) -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
