[pacman-dev] issues again about our patch queue

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 17:50:08 EST 2006

On 11/9/06, Travis Willard <travisw at wmpub.ca> wrote:
> Also, as far as I can tell, forking doesn't immediately imply that
> contributions to the original tree have to stop. I know I, for one,
> really appreciate all your contributions.  I'm positive phrak does too,
> beyond any doubt.

That's 100% correct.

This is not about contributions or anything like that.  Forking does
not imply that there is any animosity and that contributions are not
welcome (i.e. the hardened-php guys are regular contributors back to
php).  As with before, my _ENTIRE_ issue can be summed up in one

   Give credit where credit is due.

Until about a month ago, if someone were to look at the pacman code in
the frugalware repos, it would appear that, based on comments, VMiklos
created the entire thing and Judd, the one who created the original
AND maintained it (alone, I might add) for something like 4 years was
just a contributor.  His name was stripped from files as if he didn't

Now, I've noticed that you distribute code directly from _your_ repo.
Your repo indicates that it is "Frugalware's package manager" and
there is not a single reference to "Arch" or "Archlinux" in there at

If someone, who had never used Arch, came to Frugalware and looked
through the code, it would appear that it was entirely created by you
guys.  It follows that "Frugalware's package manager" was created by

My _only_ issue is that it seems, when looking at the repo, that there
is no "partnership" here.  From the outside it looks as though "this
is frugalware's".

Let's be clear - my issue is not with you, and not with your
contributions, and not with anything you do.  My issue is with the
fact that we had to struggle to make it even appear that Judd (and
therefore Arch) did anything with relation to this project, and now it
appears as though there is still more-of-the-same.

Now, let me explain the meaning of a "fork", since it seems to have a
negative connotation to you guys.

>From Wikipedia:
In software engineering, a project fork or branch happens when a
developer (or a group of them) takes code from a project and starts to
develop independently of the rest. The term is also used more loosely
to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are
several forks of the English language Wikipedia).

With relation to other distros and software:
Typically when one distributes a piece of software in "patched" form,
the source is still pulled from the original location, and a patch is
applied.  In a vast majority of cases these patches are not
functionality changes.

You guys distribute source directly from your own repo, with
functionality changes beyond the original codebase (things which were
"develop[ed] independantly of the rest").  This is, by the wikipedia
definition, a fork.

Now.  I am not trying to "force you" to fork, or any such nonsense.
Forking is not a bad thing.  It is not looked down upon (FreeBSD,
NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, ...).  I have no idea why there was such violent
opposition to this.  Forked projects typically cross-contribute.

All I'm saying is that if there's not even a head nod to Archlinux,
and no cross-collaboration, and many different code repositories all
over the place, we're not really developing the same application
anymore.  I mean, right now, what happens if I removed the sha1sums
code entirely because we don't use it?  You would not remove anything
and maintain a _different_ code base.

Now, again.  I need to reiterate that I am not emotional about this in
the least.  I am a bit saddened by the fact that it took so much
hardship to get a slight acknowledgment for Judd and Arch in general,
yes. But that is beside the point. The original email began in a
hostile manner, and that is unnecessary.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list