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