Philipp Kern wrote: > On 04.12.2016 15:47, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > Those of us feeling weird can go through the list here [1] and see > > which of those are weird and help create a patch for their parent > > module and convince their upstream to use a patch instead. If you > > can't convince them, maintaining a fork would be fine too. > > You'd think that the effort to package up [1] would be more than to > patch the software using it.
Patching upstream source always makes more work (especially long-term) than packaging unmodified upstream source. Patched upstream source incurs technical debt. Getting the fix accepted upstream eliminates that technical debt, and if upstream will take the fix and just add a hard dependency on gulplog, that seems like an improvement. But if upstream won't take the patch, then packaging a tiny script seems *far* easier than maintaining a permanent fork to avoid it. - Josh Triplett
