Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Part of the problmem might be too many quick+dirty hacks, another > part's the philosophy of taking evrything as it comes from the > upstream. It's not trivial to get out of this ;-o
First off, your comments seem to be some of the more sensible here. Not that others are senseless just not much actual `what to do' content has come through. I'd hazard a guess that you may have hit a bigger problem than your comment indicates. I'm pretty sure there would be great pressure to use `quick and dirty hacks' to get stuff done when devs are nearly always overworked. > One little step out could be the OSS-QM project (http://oss-qm.metux.de/) > It collects fixes for a lot packages and makes them accessible in 100% > automated ways. So in a way it can be seen as an kind of overlay against > the upstream. Most of the patches are things that upstream's tend to forget > but importand for fully automated builds (eg. proper relocation, clean > feature switching, fixing buildfiles, pkg-config, etc) - they do NOT harm > the core functionality. So exactly what the vast majority of distro's > patches do, but in generic (distro agnostic) ways. The theory sounds very sensible. After looking at that page and some of the links briefly it wasn't clear to me where this is being used. I see a very short list of pkgs being worked on.. and guessing it is because of being short handed there. But what wasn't clear is how work comes in and where it goes when it goes out. Are some distros offering these overhauled pkgs or what? (Please excuse me if I'm missing obvious things on the pages) PS-The `help' link under `navigation' brings up what appears to be something it is not intended to, and may even be a hack on those pages or something. (The content that comes up may even be sort of off the wall.) -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
