[arch-general] Upstream bugs, patches

[Grigorios Bouzakis]

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> > > And I don't hear much complaints about the distro-patching from
> > > developers (exceptions: Jörg Schilling for example). A bit going
> > > further, I think that "patchability" is one of the main power of
> > > open source; and I see nothing wrong (fundamentally) in the common
> > > practice, that distros supply "mini-fork" packages to satisfy their
> > > users' taste in the heterogeneous linux community (some users like
> > > eye-candy others are minimalistic etc). Usually I enjoy _usable_
> > > "vanilla" packages (that's why I am AL user).
> > > 
> > 
> > Again, when there is a really unusable / broken package, it's very 
> > likely not because of the vanilla philosophy, but because of the lack
> > of time of developers.
> > And as far as I am concerned, Arch provides working packages, so I
> > would say it's doing pretty well overall. There are probably
> > exceptions that confirm the rule, but that's life, nothing is
> > perfect :)
> > 
> 
> Yes, I would like to believe, that you are right here. But the mc bug I
> showed you was _closed_ by reasoning: 'Implemented/Merged upstream'.
> And the same reasoning for this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5546
> 
> Bye
> 

Even if it was merged upstream the mc package in extra is 2 years old.
Maybe you could try requesting to replace it by the most recent
snapshot. I have used it for a while and it seemed totally usable, even
though i didnt test it thoroughly. 
Its from sometime in 2007 IIRC so chances are the patch in the bug report is 
part og the source.

Greg