Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/12/05 01:59 CST: > Randy, the problem here is why aren't they sent upstream, is it my job > to send them upstream.
I'm not sure it is anybody's "job". As I'm quite sure you are aware Jim, some useful packages don't have a current maintainer, or the maintainer isn't in active mode. Whatever the case may be, why would we want to remove useful patches for useful packages? Please, name just *one* good reason and I'll shut up. > If so then I have a problem with it. When do we > say enough is enough? Never. I asked a simple question. What is the harm in keeping some patches in the repo? There is zero maintenance involved. Why on earth do you care if there are patches in the repo for package ABC, even though it may not be a LFS, BLFS or hint patch? Please understand, I'm not talking about obsolete old crap. This is up to the Patches maintainer (you, Tush and Archaic) to keep up. This is something you volunteered for. There are others, myself included, that would be happy to take the hour or two every few months to remove *obsolete* patches. Please, don't complain about doing the work required for a job you volunteered for, and are listed as the maintainer. This comes with the territory. >>But to me, your comment above is an insult to everyone who has sent >>in a patch in good faith thinking their contribution may just help >>out somebody down the road. > > That's why they should be sent upstream instead of our repo. Let's just agree to disagree here. Sometimes, a maintainer doesn't respond or even want to use a patch. However, the patch is still a valid contribution from somebody thinking he can help out a fellow builder down the road. This is, what I think, the LFS project is all about. Right? > This is a situation of how long do we keep the patch, forever or until > the next release. Until it become obsolete. Again, this requires a couple of hours of work every month or two by the maintainers. Which, right now, is you. I don't want to hear that you haven't the time, because you are working on the cross-LFS project or some other reason. I've read nothing about you not having the time to do the job you volunteered for, and have accepted the responsibility for. So that said, you should keep up the repo to the best of your ability or advertise for help. I'm sure many qualified candidates would be willing to step up and help out. > Everyone is against the deletion of patches, so what > are we suppose to do? Continue to host them until they become obsolete. > Here is a couple of cases in point, aka the junkyard > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/gcc > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/linux > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/util-linux If they are obsolete, ditch them. If they are still useful, keep them. Some folks may need a particular version of GCC and the corresponding patches. I don't know. Please understand, I'm going on the only post I've read about this subject (Archaic's), where he said that unless it is an active LFS BLFS or hint patch, it should be removed. I think that move would be wrong. Please, know that I am simply disagreeing here. You guys can do whatever you want. I've just providing an argument against the idea. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 02:02:01 up 101 days, 1:35, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
