[pacman-dev] issues again about our patch queue
nix.or.die at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 9 16:16:50 EST 2006
Christian Hamar alias krix wrote:
> On 11/9/06, VMiklos <vmiklos at 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
>> "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
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
'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
You don't think this may be _bad_ for ArchLinux losing all the
>> 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 ?
More information about the pacman-dev