On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:51:07PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > I won't make such changes behind the upstream's back. > > > > What do you mean with that? > > Exactly this. Bugfixes are okay, new features too as long as they do not > break things. New operating systems - no go, since JS generaly cares > about portability issues.
Maybe it is my fault that it happened this way. I think I encouraged everyone to file every bug first as Debian bug report, and leave it to the maintainer to decide what happens from there. This is because it is simpler for us (we know the Debian bug address for each package), and also because I didn't want to "circumvent" Debian on this matter, trying to make it possible for everyone in Debian to take part into the development of Debian GNU/Hurd, at least for the packages they maintain. Independent of this specific bug report (I really only skimmed over it), I am starting to reconsider this, and file porting problems upstream first. Although the other GNU/Linux ports file them as Debian bugs AFAICS, it seems that the Hurd-specific nature of the patches, and often the volume of changes needed, is outweighing in costs the benefits listed above. But the Debian BTS is really nice, and I like to use it to keep track of my porting work. What do other people think on this issue? Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
