On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:09:34 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > arch-specific patches are almost always wrong. The last thing people > > need is to come along and find some arch developer has applied a bad > > arch-specific patch without asking first... > > > Thing is, in such a case, the maintainer isn't going to be using the > arch (or s/he'd have applied it already.) If there's a problem with > the patch _on that arch_ (where else is it going to show up) the arch > team (or the dev who applied it) is responsible for any bugs.
No no. Arch specific patches, and conditional patches in general, are bad. Patches should be applied on all archs or not at all. > You seem to be saying that arch teams are deliberately going to apply > "bad patches" which makes no sense. I'm saying that there are plenty of past occurrences of arch teams applying arch-specific patches that were either outright wrong or really required on all archs. Most arch developers aren't familiar with the source of the packages they're patching, so they aren't qualified to judge whether they've really found one of those extremely rare situations where a conditional patch is the correct solution. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
