Op woensdag 22 juni 2011 22:47:40 schreef Radu-Cristian FOTESCU: > I would say that the general principle should be to apply a _minimal_ > patching, not to try to rewrite the work of the developers of hundreds of > packages! > > A distro's job is not to judge the work of the _upstream_ developers as > long as this is not a real bug. > > "Should" Mageia try to "fix" something that is not actually broken? There > might be hundreds of packages with thousands and thousands of questionable > decisions taken by the upstream developers -- however, why fixing > something that works? > > You see, I hate conflicts (although I seem to be a maestro in generating > them), but I also need simplicity and clear policies. Also, policies that > can be applied. "Perfect" policies that would require the revision of > hundreds of packages that actually work are not my cup of tea. > > Of course, I am _not_ a Mageia packager and this is not "my" package, but > I'd like to know Mageia's policy wrt building packages. Normally, patches > are not meant to optimize but to fix breakages. If the packagers are > compelled to "improve" upstream's work, this can prove to be catastrophic > in complex cases. > > > Thank you, > R-C aka beranger
imho, it's something like: "as long as you're patching it anyway, make it python and possibly add a conflicts with python >= 3.0" or something. besides, by the time we'll actually have python3, it's likely that the upstream will already have been ported to python3... or the buildsystem would fail anyway...
