On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 11:52 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > dragonauta x writes: > > I give up... > > (to resume: moto4lin doesn't work well with +2 drives, but SVN version does) > > This is what I got on bugzilla: > > "I'm sorry, but this is still an upstream issue. The fact that the upstream > > author has a patch that fixes this problem but is not releasing it in an > > official release does not make this a packaging issues, IMHO. > > > > It is my position that bugs like this need to be fixed by an upstream > > release, > > particularly in cases like this. Because upstream fixes help all > > distributions, > > and Fedora, effectively, forking it does not. > > > > I don't believe it is Fedora's place to be tracking svn. Does the upstream > > maintainer have a good reason for not having a real release that fixes this? > > > > If someone from fedora-devel thinks this should be tracking SVN, they should > > re-open this and take assignment on the bug." > > > > Thanks anyway. > > I don't get it. Where's the problem? Upstream refuses to produce an > update? Please don't oversimplify the issue. Just because upstream refuses, for whatever reason, to come up with a release doesn't mean packagers should refuse to package up a copy from VCS, particularly if it's been made reproducible. Upstream has their own agenda and packagers carry a bigger responsibility to the PACKAGE'S USERS. If the packager doesn't want to do the extra work, then say so, and hopefully a comaintainer will package it. But don't refuse it on principle. The fact remains that there is a fix and upstream isn't making it difficult at all to package. So why drag one's feet? If this were a trivial patch (cosmetic), I'd understand the reluctance. But bugs which break normal functionality I consider pretty up there. -- Richi Plana -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
