On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:52:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] > The bug submitter had already contacted the upstream maintainer of > XTerm, and the patches had been rejected by him. Apparently, the > submitter's goal was to get Debian to fork from upstream after the exact > same change had been rejected upstream.
If I follow you, Debian libtool must not be patched too. > I think KUBOTA-san's effort to sneak his changes in through the > backdoor, as it were, without apprising me of his earlier failed efforts > to get them accepted upstream, was an underhanded and dishonest thing to > do. It is sometimes easier to patch Debian packages because we know that some tools are available. For instance in #179929 the same upstream rejected a patch because GNU sed is needed, and you did not apply it too. Do you have any good reason? And the fix is trivial, sed -e 's/[EMAIL PROTECTED]//' should do the trick without GNU sed. > When the Debian-JP Project merged with Debian, the understanding was the > Debian-JP maintainers would work with upstream authors and their fellow > non-JP Debian developers in an open and communicative fashion, instead > of just forking everything behind a wall of silence. > > In the instant case, I feel that pledge has been violated. > > It's happened again, just within the past day, with "xft-cjk"; while the > person who inadvertently uploaded it to auric's queue wasn't a Debian > Developer (the upload was rejected), there is probably at least one > Debian developer who is aware of these patches. Has there ever been a > bug filed against xft about the issues which that patch seeks to > address? No. Are you kidding? On the one hand patches are rejected without even telling why, and on the other hand forks are considered as unfriendly. > Our Social Contract says "We Won't Hide Problems". Given the amount of trivial bugreports related to i18n with patches against xterm/xlibs, your interpretation seems to be "We Will Expose Problems via the BTS". > I do not feel that that principle is being upheld very well by some > of our developers. > > That KUBTOA-san has a patch for xterm that was rejected by upstream was > a problem. He didn't tell me of his patch's past history with the > upstream maintainer. He hid it instead. After reading other i18n related bugreports, I have the feeling that you won't apply a patch not approved by upstream, even if it is a trivial fix for a real problem. So I would have behaved the exact same way as Kubota-san did. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
