Hi, you are both wrong. On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, 7heo wrote: > My point exactly. Plus, it does not even solve an actual problem.
It does, it makes life for downstream package maintainers (like me) easier, as no cherry-picking of patches or own releases are required. > On June 1, 2015 4:33:55 PM CEST, "Martti Kühne" <[email protected]> wrote: > >No it wouldn't help downstream package maintainers. It helps, see above. > >You're right in that package maintainers can't tell where the fixes > >and new features are coming in, they'll not introduce their own > >releases. Right, you disproved your own sentence above. > >However upstream is not everyone's taste either, The default setting match the taste of *enough* people, so that it is worthwhile to roll a package based on releases. This is proven by the available packages in the various distributions. > > in that configuration > > changes require recompiling of the respective binary. There are package managers which allow very easy re-compiling of packages with own patch-sets, especially due to projects like suckless. Several people, still prefer re-compiling of packages based on the given releases. Because from sysadmin point of view, packages are always wanted and preferred over random source builds. > >Releases hence make sense for software that fits everyone's needs with > >their configuration files, which is untrue either for most suckless > >projects. Releases make sense for several reasons, even for suckless projects and and adding a tag is not hard, right? Regards, Joerg
