* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 18:09]: > On what basis are you making this decision? I explained that > it is important, for debugging and development reasons for the free > software community, to be able to easily build upstream versions to > see how it compares to the debian patched version of the software, so > if the maintainers hacking in .orig breaks the build system, the > system should be fixed.
I do not think the .orig should be changed to make it compile under Debian when it does not do so by default (unless you do a fork and properly name yourself as upstream maintainer of that fork). And if the .orig.tar.gz no longer compiles because of anything in it, be it removal of a hypothetical directory called ".." or some non-free stuff. If comparing a version without additional patches and a full-patched version is so important, I'd rather suggest to use some patch management system allowing to get the source in two different working states, one with only patches to make it build and one with all the Debian changes. > > I guess it would be less of an issue, if he did not insist of what > > almost everyone else has agreed on and I never saw disputed is > > "unethical". > > Ah. Your technical and policy decisions are biased by my > belief that some practice is unethical, as opposed to the merits of > the issue in your eyes? I see. I now know better how to categorize > your opinions, then. No. But my (and other people's) style of discussion is sometimes influenced by weather I'm getting insults thrown in my directions. Its hard work to calm down and try to bring rational arguments, when you have to stand a "you are all wrong and doing unethical things, just because all of you do the wrong and unethical thing, I won't do it" repitition. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
