2009/6/19 Joerg Mayer
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 06:39:27PM +0200, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
2009/6/18 Joerg Mayer
: On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Maybe it's a good idea filling bugs to maintainers so they can be aware of this problem. I don't think it's a bug if a package doesn't work out of the box with different linker flags.
I think the opposite way. Being involved in Wireshark development I have to go and check all the big distros for changes made, find out why and by whom and then apply what appears to be useful. <rant> It's *really* annoying! Why can't the package maintainers open a bug with Wireshark for every patch that isn't 100% distro specific and let the project maintainers decide what is acceptable and what isn't?
Seriously? Because I think "now I will have to open an account in its bug tracker and...". When I'm not busy I report upstream, but when I have anything else to do the last thing I want is open yet another account in yet another bug tracker.
OH, now that's an interesting approach: You need to track upstream, so you have to spend quite a bit of time following that stuff, e.g. subscribe to the relevant mailing lists, find out the svn address, but you cannot be bothered to take the one time effort (per project that you maintain) to open an account?
I don't mantain many packages, I'm more the random patch guy. But as I already said "my fault"... I was giving an explanation, not a justification. Why the mantainer doesn't submits upstream the patches I submit to him? Well, he probably thinks I already did.
My fault, but... perhaps OpenID will make people report more to upstream.
While I'm ranting anyway: Each and every patchfile that is part of a source package should contain a description and information on the author(s) - how am I supposed to give credit correctly otherwise when I decide that a patch is useful? Normally figuring out the credits part is more work than finding out whether to apply a patch or not. </rant>
I don't really mind about getting credit for some minor patches. But I suppose it's important to upstream because of legalities. Anyway, Wireshark 1.2.0 builds with --as-needed because of the new behavior in binutils, but it still has a problem that triggers if you use pre-2.20 binutils. The patch is available at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=wireshark-1.2.0-asneeded.patch&package=wireshark&project=openSUSE%3AFactory and I'm the author.
Now you're really funny: In order to access that URL I need to create an account .....
But what I was really complaining about is that there doesn't seem to be any requirement to put the necessary information directly into the patches.
There is: http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.15._Patch_Tag, but... I think I have NEVER found a name in an openSUSE patch. Few times an explanation. There is also http://en.opensuse.org/GNOME/Patches, that I don't know why it's under GNOME. But in general (perhaps it's better for Gnome packages) isn't very respected. ...someone feels like creating some rpmlint checks? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org