rpms/seahorse/devel seahorse.spec,1.18,1.19

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Jesse Keating schrieb:
> On Sunday 23 July 2006 11:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> Michael,
>>>  Any reason why you made this change to my package rather than just
>>> filing a bug about it?
>> Punish me if you think it was a bad thing.
> Its the curtious thing to do.  File a bug, allow the maintainer to fix it 
> him/herself.  Changing somebody else's package should only be done as a last 
> resort when the maintainer is AWOL.

I think what Michael did is acceptable and actually a good thing
Especially for such minor changes and when done by someone who has shown
that he understands packaging and the packaging guidelines well (e.g. is
a Sponsor).

Further: I think a slightly more Wiki-style-approach would be a good
thing for Extras. Two reasons for this opinion:

- %{dist} vs. %{?dist} and similar small errors: Fixing them in cvs is
often quick and easy, opening bugs for small errors like that often
takes a lot of time and sometimes is painful. Result with the "only
maintainer may touch a package" scheme: Small things often don't get
fixed because no one files bugs for them.

- in the early days of Fedora Extras there were a lot of packages that
didn't build on x86_64 (maybe 10% of the packages were missing for
x86_64 -- I can't remember the exact numbers). I and some others fixed a
lot of those directly in CVS. I tried to file bugs in the beginning, but
they often got ignored, patches ignored and bugzilla was frustrating as
always. I had two ways to go forward:
-- proceed with the painful and frustrating bugzilla work
-- fix it directly in CVS
I did the latter mostly (big intrusive changes still got discussed first
in bugzilla or via mail). Nearly nobody complained and we had a mostly
complete FE for x86_64 after some weeks/months. It would have taken much
longer via bugzilla. I think it was the right thing to do.

Just my 2 cent.

CU
thl