[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PATCH: cdrecord: avoiding scsi device numbering for ide devices
    On Tue, 2004-08-10 17:48:14 +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski <>
    wrote in message <>:
    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:24:59 +0200
    > Jan-Benedict Glaw <> wrote:
    > > IIRC Jörg complained some hundred emails ago that they (the SuSE people)
    > > don't care to try to get their patches upstream, back to Jörg, or
    > > discussing their changes with him (but instead hacking cdrecord the way
    > > it fits best for them).
    > Have you followed this thread? I can very well imagine what kind of a mess it
    > may be to get a patch accepted "upstream".
    > In fact I would have dropped this idea, too.

    Yes, I've read this whole thread. ...and I know, too, what amount of
    hard work is required to get patches upstream. It's a *lot* more work
    than needed to actually implement the chance beforehand.

    > > While they (and any other distro's people and anybody else) may actually
    > > hack the code to no end, I consider it being good habit to actually
    > > *avoid* forking without the intent to (constantly) work in re-merging
    > > the fork. While this is perfectly legal, I can understand that Jörg
    > > (even while using a broken email client 8-) doesn't like getting
    > > complains about a hacked cdrecord, or missing useful changes the
    > > distribution people did to cdrecord...
    > Sometimes forking is unavoidable and necessary. On Joergs side things are
    > pretty easy. All he has to tell the people is that according to the version
    > spec they sent he refuses to help them, because they use a forked version.
    > The true story behind may be that nobody wants to use his version for certain
    > pecularities and that therefore merely no feedback is reaching him (any more).

    Get real. Most people actually *use* distros, and many of them actually
    *fail* to put the bugs into the distro's BTS. Instead, the author (or
    whomever they think is the author) is written to. And guess? And I can
    well imaging that Jörg doesn't like getting complains about hacked
    cdrecord versions because people fail to *read* that this isn't a "pure"

    > > So what's commercial distro's primary goal? (1) Re-packaging
    > > software for the sole purpose of earning some $$ or (2) acting as
    > > a mediator between upstream authors and their paying customers?
    > >
    > > If it is all about (1), I for one would consider (at least for my future
    > > work) to not continue without actually *forcing* vendors into discussing
    > > their useful changes with me as an upstream author. Like working IN but
    > > not solely FOR a community...
    > Don't try to press politics onto distros. See what they really are: companies.
    > All companies want to earn bucks, that's what they are for.
    > If you don't like that, use debian. You got the choice, that's the fine part
    > about it.

    Actually, I use Debian since, um, long ago:) But accept that Jörg
    doesn't really like to care about f*cked up patched versions of
    cdrecord. And right, that's a completely different topic compared to
    possible bugs/non-documented APIs etc. Jörg is complaining about.

    MfG, JBG

    Jan-Benedict Glaw . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
    "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
    ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.023 / U:154.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site