[Bug 430307] Review Request: Falcon - The Falcon Programming Language

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: Falcon - The Falcon Programming Language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430307





------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de  2008-04-21 04:52 EST -------
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > (In reply to comment #20)
> > > Hello;
> > > The tarball in the srpm is now on the site as 
> > > http://www.falconpl.org/downloads/0.8.8/Falcon-0.8.8-fc9.tar.gz
> > 
> > The normal way would be to use an original upstream tarball and Fedora to apply
> > patches.
> > 
> 
> This is not about patches, but about adding a new license to the tarbal.
Which is silly -  Upstream should get used to using reasonable release policies

 Ralf,
> it would _really_ help if you first read the entire ticket before shooting of
> some random comments.
I did - Openly said, your accusation embarrasses me very much.

> > > I cannot update the original package because it would break currently released
> > > debian-based distros (packagers would have tons of bells ringing as they
monitor
> > > sites download pages to check for updates with automated tools).
> > Off cause upstream can do this! It's what 10000s of projects do. 
> > Upstream work must be independent of distro specific work (packaging an rpm).
> > 
> > If it's not, then something is very broken.
> > 
> 
> Upstream should never respin a tarbal without a version change or some other
> change in the name of the tarbal.
Correct.

> replacing an already distributed tarbal causes
> lots of troubles for lots of distros. Something which you know, again please
> read the ticket first.
They should release a new release - Even if a licence change is the only change.

Such kind of incidents happen all the time.

> Also the comment you were responding from is from _upstream_! An upstream who
> has been very kind to Fedora, so kind as to dual license, and respin a tarbal
> now (with a different name as to not cause all kinda checksum alarms to go off
> which would have happened if the original tarbal changed).
> 
> So I would like to say: Thanks Giancarlo Niccolai, the respinned (differently
> named) tarbal will work nicely for us.
I disagree. We should not ship temporary hacked forks. If a package doesn't
comply to our licensing requirements, it's out. Upstream has the freedom to
release a new release with the issues fixed. Their decision.





-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.