Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:10:57 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: cdrecord: avoiding scsi device numbering for ide devices |
| |
On Tue, 2004-08-10 17:48:14 +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> wrote in message <20040810174814.414c8fdd.skraw@ithnet.com>: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:24:59 +0200 > Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> 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" incarnation.
> > 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 jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +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] | |