On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. > > It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, > some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). > >> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which >> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it). If >> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak >> up. > > Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about, > see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary. > Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details... > >> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in >> a different way... > > It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ... > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo >
Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all -- Regards, Markos Chandras
