Renato Silva <[email protected]> writes: > 2014-08-14 22:48 GMT-03:00 Óscar Fuentes <[email protected]>: > >> IMHO MSYS2 should limit itself to patches required by the specific needs >> of this environment (and perhaps some MinGW-w64 patches.) Broadening the >> scope is a recipe for maintainer burn-out. >> > > I disagree. Local patches are usually forwarded upstream then removed when > applied there. But upstream can be pretty > <https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/14970> stubborn > <https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/1458>, so sometimes you just give > up.
I skimmed over those two examples and it seems to me that they are a matter of personal opinion, not bugs. I don't think that a third-party binary distribution should modify an app for adapting it to the personal views of some user. > It's a matter of balance whether to create local patches or not. Consider > this concrete example > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2014-06/msg00020.html>, should > it be included in MSYS2? Maybe,if the benefit overcomes the cost, then why > not? Likewise. If you wish, fork bash and convince Alexey to distribute it instead of upstream's (naming it "Renato Silva's Bash" or something.) But please don't put the weight of the fork on the MSYS2 maintainers. > After all, this is why MSYS2 exists, because splitting off from > MinGW.org was considered worth the work. I don't think that adding non-MSYS-specific patches to packages was the motivator for creating MSYS2. As I mentioned, a local patch creates a fork, and that has serious consequences. To begin with, upstream would be justified on rejecting bug reports coming from MSYS2 users. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Msys2-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/msys2-users
