Christian Hamar alias krix wrote:

On 11/9/06, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:

...

...

krix just told me that you have problems with our patch queue. may i ask you to:

1) discuss such problems here, not in private mails or on irc

The problem was brought up in private because I noticed it _as I was writing an email to him_.

...

2) mention what is the problem with our patch queue

I'm not sure what you mean by "patch queue". My issue is this from darcs.frugalware.org: "pacman Frugalware's .tar.bz2 based package manager with depende ..."

Really... I mean, looking around it just appears that you guys are running a fork, and not "pacman".

As a corollary, let's look at IceWeasel - it has the Firefox code, plus a few additional patches, they regularly sync with upstream, etc etc. It sounds alot like what you guys do with "Frugalware's package manager".

Heh , I can tell you we did not fork. Before you post such an example pls go figure the Firefox License and you will notice *you are forced to rename if you don't distribute 'as is'*. So you have to 1) send all changes to the FF devels to be approved ( if they don't and you still want the changes you need rename ) 2) don't do so and follow the license and rename. So this is a bad example. Anyway to _not_ rename a fork is idiotic. BTW do you think a program with some 'cutom patches is a fork ?' Or what is your _real_ problem *now* with the darcs repo ? before you merged all fixes 'it was OK' now isn't anymore ? Every Distro is using pacman 'will' ( and you can't change this ) add custom patches , so do you want all to 'fork' ? You don't think this may be _bad_ for ArchLinux losing all the contributors ?

...

I'm not trying to say anything bad by it. It's just customary to make a name change when running a fork (I even think the GPL requires it, but I may be mistaken). I mean, lets look at it from a user's point of view:

"Oh hey, pacman, I used that on Arch! Wait... why doesn't that option work? What's going on? Where's the PKGBUILD for that? FrugalBuild, huh? foo-1.0-1-i686.fpm, what?".

This is the situation with other PM's too ( rpm , apt etc ). Why a Distro should be *forced* to use the same names as ArchLinux ? Or the same build system ? There isn't any reason to do so. So want you want is something different. You want us to 'rename pacman' ( but not fork ) so such ArchLinux -> Frugalware , Frugalware -> ArchLinux merges are still possible , yes ? Regards Gabriel