On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:29:25AM -0700, i...@bandshed.net wrote:
I've given this a bit more thought and firstly Jonas don't put too much weight in the 'mongrel dog' comment...it was just a (failed) attempt at viewing derivatives with a bit of humor. I don't pretend to know what you like or dislike, just what possibilities are within the Debian framework to keep things efficient. ;)

I believe I did write that I was unclear what you meant by that. I still am, but guess it isn't important.


I am preparing my user manual for the 5.0 release and would like to put a
"Support" section in there to clarify how to get help. To paraphrase our
discussion here I will explain the difference between my packages and
yours and suggest people report all bugs to me first, and then go from
there depending on if it is pkg-multimedia related or not.

Does this sound like a workable arrangement?

Sounds sensible to me. Seems like same mindset as I prefer: Start locally, and extend from there as relevant.

For a vital ecosystem it is crucial to be nice to our upstreams. Passing relevant stuff (patches, bugs etc.) back upstream is nice, but passing irrelevant stuff back upstream is not nice.

Skipping some "hops" in the upstream chain is a delicate matter: When you "skip Debian" and pass bugs and patches directly to the upstream of Debian, then your intent is no doubt good: not bother Debian with "irrelevant chit-chat between you and our common upstream". But in a hypothetic case of our common upstream then not accepting a patch you offered, it makes sense to then also offer it to Debian.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to