Reinhard Tartler wrote: > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I failed to fetch a human-readable patch info for psi in testing from >> patch-tracking.debian.net, for example. > > Okay, take another example then: > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/ffmpeg-debian Well, how can users go this site? Is it described in debian policy, devreference, some user docs?
>> Also, it would be better to combine several patch into one >> user-visible change in some cases, some patches may not be not >> "listed" at all; typos' fixes in documentation are good, but not too >> serious changes to end users, for example. > > I think it is rather hard to draw a line here, because it very much > depends on the POV of the user. End-users are likely not interested in > the source of a program, they want to use it. (Prospective) Maintainers > and upstreams of the package are interested in seeing all patches > anyways. What kind of users would be interested only in "end-user > visible" changes and is it worth the efford of the maintainer to decide > on this? (suppose) I'm a system administrator. I have received new production mail server. My only choice is a stable well-maintained distribution. Last release for RedHat contains exim 1.5.19, and Debian version is 1.5.18. I know about recently found security bug in 1.5.18. What distribution I will choose without official acknowledge that Debian's source for 1.5.18 already have a backported fix for bug? Well, for security bugs Debian have DSAs. But for other non-security fixes and improvements came to stable release? Many users don't except at all that Debian patches upstream when needed. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
