Tiziano Müller wrote: > Chris Gianelloni schrieb: >> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD >> changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies >> for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are >> required to make the necessary changes to add support for your >> architecture. > And what is going to happen with the patch? Should go upstream, but > who's responsible for that? > Er, the maintainer; if s/he's not bothered about the package compiling on different archs, should s/he really be maintaining it? I doubt upstream would appreciate that from a distro -- and it's not hard to file a quick bug with a link to the gentoo one; a quick comment on the gentoo one and any interested users can help upstream to triage it.
>> - metadata.xml changes > With limitations. > Maintainer sounds like a definite no-no. Any others? >> - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild > Just "cp"'ing the ebuilds is the reason that so many ebuilds are still a > nightmare and full of little nasty bugs. > > This is a complete no-go since there are so many things a careful > maintainer has to consider (besides checking the packages changelog, the > dependencies, the license, the docs, etc. he should also check the > ebuild). > Yeah but if they can compile it and it works as an app (however that's defined, this /is/ usr-land) what's the harm in bumping and allowing others to test it? (This is unstable, I hope..) If they can't be bothered to do that, how can they possibly claim to be testing it? (And why are they even touching it if they're not interested? ;) [I dunno how make test fits into this, either, as tests were broken for synfig.] If the maintainer doesn't like it, well s/he's already got the new version working on one arch/ machine (plus whichever user bugged the dev.) I can't see anyone really bemoaning a new tester ;P -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
