On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 19:57 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On the contrary, I don't think anyone really > considers an upstream tarball, which is stripped off of mp3 codecs at the > source-level That one was fixed the way it should have been originally - upstream has accommodated us with a source level split (-good, -bad, -ugly). > If choosing a readable package name is considered as > disrespectful, stripping and patching source tarballs is, too. If you do it without at least trying to work with upstream on it, it definitely is. Anyways, I just spoke up because recently I discovered Debian was patching some of my software - the patch was useful, but did I ever get a bug filed in the issue tracker or a post to the discussion group? Nope. Now I've been guilty of this myself before in the past, and in fact I maintained the GStreamer package years ago, and didn't do anything to try to work with upstream on the mp3 issue. Now I think people do talk too blithely about patching or modifying upstream as just part of "packaging"; there is a lot of responsibility to be taken with the power to patch. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
