On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 08:18:14PM +0000, David Coe wrote: > We have a patch to ispell, submitted to one of the > open bugs, which upstream maintainer has decided > isn't important enough to incorporate into the > upstream versions -- but is (apparently) needed > for non-i386 (Alpha, at least) compatibility in > Debian.
Why not? If you explain why it's needed (that it's more than just a correctness nit) I can't see any reason why they wouldn't. Particularly if it's minor. > I think I like the separate patch file better, > though, because it'll be easier to keep this > patch separate from other patches made for > other purposes, when migrating to newer releases > of upstream source. > Is that wrong? If not, do we have a standard > or common way of naming such patch files? There is a system for doing this (used in egcs and XFree86) which was written Adam Heath (IIRC) but it's not been released properly for general use yet due to lack of documentation. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpTqwoeOlFLJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
