On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 11:27 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 08:25 +0100, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just a talk. But it seems there are more and more patchs in pkgbuilds > > and this now very difficult to check packages or such things like > > customize a package for specific needs. At least if patchs would be > > documented it would be usefull. Anyway I thought that one principle of > > Arch Linux was simplicity and the less patch as possible. What is the > > position right now ? > > Keep it simple yes, but also make it working. I think you're referencing > my Firefox builds now, which contained like 20 patches for 1.0.x and now > it has something like 10 patches left for 1.5.x. The reason to do so is > to make it work better with programs that want a gecko rendering engine, > like galeon and epiphany (without patching, you can't use typeaheadfind > in both of them, several bugs appear, etc). Other option would be to > keep firefox clean and build against mozilla, but then you would have a > huge internet suite on your system which won't get actively developed > anymore. > Most of the times when I add a patch, I describe what it does in the CVS > changelogs. For firefox I didn't do so: I named the patches according to > the bugzilla IDs at mozilla and gnome.
Mmm it wasn't just this package ;) There also a lot of packages that have patchs more than required from time to time but this isn't the real problem if they are here to improve usability. Just I note that more and more package come out with patch when the software just come out and I don't understand, are the developer of software don't test them ? Btw you're right patchs description should be in cvs and sometimes they aren't :( > > > One other point I dislike is the the lack of transparency about upgrade > > or major changes in architecture like udev, initscripts, hal, kernel > > that we had in last months. This changes should be coumminicated before > > the release of the package, and package should be always tested before > > and put in testing to do it in my opininion. This last point should be > > for all packages. For example if we take php package we see 5 changes in > > 10 days and package is always updated in current.... That's shouldn't > > be... What about people that works with it... Not everybody coule be a > > tester everyday.... > > I agree with this. The hal/dbus thing that got 4-5 versions in a few > days was my mistake, I should have put it in testing. Same goes for some > other packages with big changes. For udev, hotplug and kernel: we do > such things in testing right now. k. good news :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
