andrea at archlinux.org
Thu Mar 11 00:13:11 CET 2010
On Thursday 11 March 2010 00:01:58 Paul Mattal wrote:
> My understanding of our patching philosophy is:
> 1) Don't patch if doing so makes us un-vanilla. Users familiar with
> the standard behavior of software should be able to rely on our
> packaged versions to behave the same way.
> 2) If there's some major roadblock (crash, hang, data loss, chronic
> incompatibility), apply a reasonable patch as a workaround, as long
> as this kind of patch for this kind of problem has not been rejected
> upstream. Report the bug and patch upstream, and remove the patch
> from our package when upstream integrates a fix.
> 3) We don't maintain upstream software; we should not do a lot of
> work to patch unmaintained software.
I am totally agree with these rules.
I don't like to patch software to provides this or that feature, but we need
to patch a software that does not work due a bug fixed upstream.
People can edit and rebuild packages using ABS and/or AUR.
"Arch was made to work with you, not for you" [A. Griffin] :)
More information about the arch-dev-public