I agree with Ralf. The packaging guidelines are complex enough already... On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 13:15 +0200, Till Maas wrote: >> Hiyas, >> >> I want to propose to extend the following Guideline (given it is one): >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus >> >> Imho it should also include other content that is added to the Package but not >> a patch, e.g. .desktop files, manpages and icons. > -1 > > I don't find this proposal useful, for several reasons: > > 1. Many patches actually are distribution-specific hacks and not > suitable for upstream submission. Upstreams will very unlikely consider > them, nor does it make sense to communicate them to upstreams. > > 2. You are presuming maintainers are actively collaborating/actively > participating with an "active upstream". In many cases, this does not > apply for one or more reasons. > > 3. Such "annotations" add bureaucratic bloat. They tend to outdate and > rot over longer terms. > > 4. Maintainers already have the liberty of adding comments/explanations > to patches rsp. to specs, rsp. to communicate issues to upstreams. > I don't see much sense/use in extending the FPC to "enforce" or > "endorse" what I feel is your personal preference, which likely fits > into your personal situation. > > Ralf > > > -- > Fedora-packaging mailing list > Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging > > -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
