On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:29:32 +0200 "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bugs as grave as this one are not acceptable in Debian packages for > > extended periods of time. The bug report has been open for over 1 > > year, I have attached my patch on 2007-11-16. It is marked as > > critical since 2008-01-16. If you don't want such patches in the > > Debian package, you need to fix such bugs faster (and comment on > > patches in bugzilla faster). Of course I understand that this is > > difficult because there are never enough people to fix bugs (we have > > the same problem). I don't think I share your implied view about how grave this is. I respect your opinion, but when maintaining your own patches, please consider also the problems discussed in my article at http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/11/04/apache_packages_support_vacuum/ (which goes to the heart of why Debian may get a pretty hostile reception amongst some Apache folks). > To take it to the extreme, a fork being called 'Apache' isn't > acceptable either. Please work with us here, even though it's a very > low barrier for you to put patches in your package, much lower than to > get it applied upstream (here). To be fair, I think Stefan _is_ working with us: he's put his patch in bugzilla, and (now, though not originally) he's raised it on the list. As for maintaining local patches, he's not the only one doing that, and our license clearly allows it. Licenses that restrict such things seem to be widely disliked: c.f. DJB/qmail. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
