<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler <span dir="ltr"></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
Rahul Sundaram wrote:<br>
> Socket activation is not mandatory or even a benefit in all cases. Just<br>
> because we have a patch doesn't mean it is the right one. Upstream might<br>
> have the foresight and the knowledge to see problems with patches we might<br>
> not. There might be security implications. It specific cases, we can<br>
> consider overriding upstream decisions but there should be very strong<br>
> reasons to do so. Just because a license allows it doesn't make it best<br>
> practise. It is always useful to get more peer reviews from patches with<br>
> the expertise in the codebase. Upstream is a good place for that.<br>
<br>
</div>I believe it is the purpose of a well-integrated distribution to make sure<br>
distro-wide features are implemented in ALL packages, irrespectively of<br>
upstream projects' (or even individual package maintainers') personal<br>
opinions and diverging (from ours) objectives.<br></blockquote><div><br>Nothing I said contradicts that however it is not just a question of personal's opinions. It is also a question of maintenance (non-upstreamable patches need to be forwarded ported for updates, might have bugs not in the upstream codebase. so your advovacy of abrt reporting bugs upstream is in contradiction ), expertise in the codebase (upstream is more knowledgeable typically). Upstream opinions do matter and we need to care even if we decide on exceptions on some specific cases for good reasons. We have a long standing policy of doing so and it is an important part of what Fedora is. <br>
<br>Rahul<br></div></div>