[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: status of forked zlibs in rsync and zsync



On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:28 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On 09/16/2009 08:59 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>> > Am 16.09.2009 17:47, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
>> >
>> >> That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked rsync
>> >> upstream to make their fork publicly available instead of hoarding
>> >> it as a private, internal copy.
>> >
>> > I would ask, why the modification will not integrated in the
>> > 'official' Fedora zlib package?
>> >
>> > After this integration the fedora maintainer can forward the pach to
>> > the upsream author.
>> >
>> And a short followup -- I've gone through the zlib-devel mailing list
>> archives now.  I was unable to find any request for the rsync patches to
>> be merged into mainline zlib.  The mailing list archives only go back to
>> March 2002, so it could be that the request to merge came before that
>> directly to one of the zlib authors.  But if so, there's not a record of
>> what problems, if any, there were with the patch.
>
> My follow-up on this: I'm pursuing two tracks.
>
> I've mailed zlib maintainers directly - they specifically ask for
> questions to be sent to a direct email address rather than the
> zlib-devel list - to ask what their position is on this, so we can get
> some clarity there. I will pass on what (if anything) I hear back from
> them.
>
> Secondly, where would be the appropriate place to propose accepting
> zsync with the internal zlib? Is that something I should bring to the
> packaging committee?

fesco ?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]