On Monday 29 March 1999, at 1 h 17, the keyboard of Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * check that patches that should be sent upstream are being sent > upstream -- I think this is very important and I think we have a > bit of a bad reputation on this count. Could you elaborate? After all, source packages are available for the upstream developers. > (d) Perhaps another cron job, implementing a public emailing to > debian-devel, listing the top 100 packages with huge debian diffs. This seems a poor metric. One of the packages I maintain (ncbi-tools6-dev) has a documentation of 300 pages in MS-Word format. I translated it in ASCII and put in the source package. Does it qualify me as "not sending patches upstream"? Also, the upstream maintainers have a bad reputation, too :-) queso in Debian now has a lot of patches which are silently ignored by the upstream maintainer (64 bits support, for instance). We are actually forking. The maintainer of phylip, when I sent him the patches for glibc support, replied that he already had them in his private area for a long time but did not bother to make a new release :-( This sort of behaviour does not push me to send patches upstream anymore. > Start pushing harder for maintainers to try to work out fixes with > the upstream maintainers -- this is a cultural issue. (Maybe even a > lintian warning if the debian diff has lots of patches not under the > debian subdir?) So, when an upstream maintainer no longer replies, I will be castigated?
