disagreement in a merge review about patches

[Oliver Falk]

Hi Pat!

On 06/01/2007 10:12 AM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I am in disagreement with Marcela in 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529
> It is about the patches, and it begins here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529#c15
> 
> My point is that the patches are unreviewable and cannot be given to
> upstream or shared among packagers when upstream is dead, because some
> patches touch the same code, leading to something that isn't readable.
> Marcela disagrees because then there won't be a one patch one bug
> relationship. My advice is to keep the patches to have this one patch
> one bug relationship, but don't apply tem and instead have a one patch
> one functionality instead.
> 
> Advices?

I think it was a good idea to involve -devel list...

I've now read the bug... It's becoming a huge thread already. :-)

The vixie-cron package contains so many patches and the release has been
increased so many times now... Active development of cron is only done
by distributions now.

>From my point of view I would say it would be good to create a new
'upstream'. Maybe some trac project at fp.o or so... Let's say: vixie's
dead, long live vixie :-)

Or is there any good alternative for vixie-cron? I'm not 100 % sure, but
I think I stumbled across some crond, that is under active development.
Quick search on freshmeat or via google should be done.


To bring it to a point: I don't think it's good to have Base OS packages
in Fedora (and then in RHEL) that have no active upstream! If we want to
stick with vixie, we should create a new upstream project - officially;
And invite other distros to join. If we don't want to stick with it, we
should find an alternative.

-of