Package requests wishlist - pine

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:09:19 -0500, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Might I also quote another Fedora Objective, #3:
> * Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the
> upstream packages
> Which is exactly what pine's license forces you to do anyway.

You hit on exactly the point i am trying to beat into you. 
"As much as possible"  is not eqivalent to "force"
"As much as possible" is a phrase that gives control to the
packager..control to make a choice when needed to work downstream if
working upstream isn't the right choice.
This is absolutely the crux of the problem. Forcing something to
happen as compared to choosing to do it is a very big difference.
 
> Besdies, I'm arguing policy.  The only policy I have found that applies
> here is the "open source" requirement of packages to be included in
> Fedora Extras.
> 
> Perhaps another policy should be added to the Fedora Objectives at the
> end about what it won't do:
> *  If enough people (especially those on the fedora-devel mailing list)
> "just don't like" the package in question, it won't be allowed in Fedora
> Core/Extras.
> (I'm joking, of course, but only a little).

I love pine as a console app, I use pine on some systems thanks to
mharris's voluntary packaging efforts in his p.r.c space. This has
nothing to do with the technical quality or the usefulness of the
application. It has everything to do with the legal restrictions
placed on the project by its license. My personal preference to use
pine, is immaterial to the issue of letting in packages that can not
be maintained at the packaging level when required inside Fedora.  I
hope you get permission from UW to distribute modified versions inside
Fedora, i really do. But until you get that permission I do not think
its appopriate to be "forced" to wait for nwe upstream versions. I
believe its vital to have the option to patch at the packaging level,
when its deemed appropriate.

 
> I didn't say anything about packages that dis-allow modified binary
> redistibution.  I said waiting for upstream fixes to bugs and security
> issues.  Many, many, Fedora packages don't get bugs fixed until that
> happens.  I was drawing a parallel comparison.

I know what you said.... the argument is about who has the power to
choose when to patch.  As certain as you are that packages exist that
do not get updated until a new upstream version is released that fixes
the issue, i am certain that there are packages that get backports of
upstream fixes and are thus distributed modified versions and not
pristine upstream versions at all. Backporting an upstream fix, is
still modification. And as much as we want to say the policy is to
update in preference to backporting its important that the option to
backport is left open so it can be used when needed. Its vital that
packagers have the choice depending on the situation whether to
locally patch, backport from upstream or update to new upstream
version. Pine license takes away all choice of action at the packaging
level, and that situation should be avoided.

-jef