[Fedora-packaging] Extending PatchUpstreamStatus to include other added content (e.g. desktop files)

[Vasile Gaburici]

I agree with Ralf. The packaging guidelines are complex enough already...

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 13:15 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> Hiyas,
>>
>> I want to propose to extend the following Guideline (given it is one):
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus
>>
>> Imho it should also include other content that is added to the Package but not
>> a patch, e.g. .desktop files, manpages and icons.
> -1
>
> I don't find this proposal useful, for several reasons:
>
> 1. Many patches actually are distribution-specific hacks and not
> suitable for upstream submission. Upstreams will very unlikely consider
> them, nor does it make sense to communicate them to upstreams.
>
> 2. You are presuming maintainers are actively collaborating/actively
> participating with an "active upstream". In many cases, this does not
> apply for one or more reasons.
>
> 3. Such "annotations" add bureaucratic bloat. They tend to outdate and
> rot over longer terms.
>
> 4. Maintainers already have the liberty of adding comments/explanations
> to patches rsp. to specs, rsp. to communicate issues to upstreams.
> I don't see much sense/use in extending the FPC to "enforce" or
> "endorse" what I feel is your personal preference, which likely fits
> into your personal situation.
>
> Ralf
>
>
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>
>