Paul Szabo wrote:
> Dead bod,
>
> >> ... I find it puzzling that Debian has used "known broken" patches (over
> >> and above the "upstream" code), instead of the "proper" ones.
> >
> > I'm rather confused by this assertion.
> > Please clarify exactly which "known broken" patches have been applied,
> > and additionally provide the upstream change number of the "proper"
> > ones.
>
> I apologize if I was not clear enough.
>
> What I meant to say: Debian has applied patches/changes to the "upstream"
> perl5-porters code; these patches/changes were known not to solve the
> problem; while at the time fully functional patches had been submitted to
> Debian. Why were not the "good" patches used?
This is usually a result of pure confusion and information (patch) overflow.
Regards,
Joey
--
Have you ever noticed that "General Public Licence" contains the word "Pub"?
