At Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:03:00 +0100,
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Quoting Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.de>de>:
At Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:33:57 +0100,
Sure, I don't mean to stick *only* with the init shell script. It's
broken for systemd, thus it must be fixed. No doubt about it. And
the fix should be done together with the upstream at best indeed.
However, a random patching in SUSE package can be rather a pain by
itself alone. As mentioned, it's often harder to maintain unless
accepted in the upstream.
So, the key is the collaborative fix with the upstream. It might be a
few lines of C code, but it needs lots of social tasks in addition.
The background I write this is that, honestly speaking, I can hardly
imagine that a SUSE-specific sysconfig is acceptable as a common
infrastructure over all distros. If I were to get a patch from a
Canonical guy to add a patch to parse Ubuntu's config file to any ALSA
util programs, I'd reject it :)
A typical and likely solution will be to introduce a new config file
in the end, with a hope that the downstream will follow to change
their tools like YaST for managing the new config file. This is a
cleaner solution, but takes a long long way...
finally we're talking what it takes to be a packager / package
maintainer... it's not about writing the .spec file (the syntax is not
that difficult after all), but more aspects around it and a good
contact / relation with upstream is very essential to be able to
maintain the packages in long term.
Right. But don't forget that the whole story is not only about
contacts with the upstream. For example, if a new config file scheme
is introduced, it must be adapted by its management tools. This
implies a contact with *internal* tool maintainers, too.
And at best, involve these tool maintainers from the very beginning of
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org