Richi Plana writes: > 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. I dunno. That sounds like a very good reason to me. Otherwise Fedora would have to maintain a fork, which really isn't a good plan. It isn't the job of a Fedora packager to maintain a fork. If it's really so important to get this fixed, it needs to be fixed across all distros. If there hasn't been a release for three years, the package needs to be orphaned or someone who cares needs to start maintaining a fork that can become the new upstream. > 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. I think we need to know why upstream is not packaging this fix in an official release. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
