Hi,
you are both wrong.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, 7heo wrote:
> My point exactly. Plus, it does not even solve an actual problem.
It does, it makes life for downstream package maintainers (like me)
easier, as no cherry-picking of patches or own releases are required.
> On June 1, 2015 4:33:55 PM CEST, "Martti Kühne" <mysatyre_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >No it wouldn't help downstream package maintainers.
It helps, see above.
> >You're right in that package maintainers can't tell where the fixes
> >and new features are coming in, they'll not introduce their own
> >releases.
Right, you disproved your own sentence above.
> >However upstream is not everyone's taste either,
The default setting match the taste of *enough* people, so that it is
worthwhile to roll a package based on releases. This is proven by
the available packages in the various distributions.
> > in that configuration
> > changes require recompiling of the respective binary.
There are package managers which allow very easy re-compiling of
packages with own patch-sets, especially due to projects like suckless.
Several people, still prefer re-compiling of packages based on the given
releases. Because from sysadmin point of view, packages are always
wanted and preferred over random source builds.
> >Releases hence make sense for software that fits everyone's needs with
> >their configuration files, which is untrue either for most suckless
> >projects.
Releases make sense for several reasons, even for suckless projects and
and adding a tag is not hard, right?
Regards,
Joerg
Received on Mon Jun 01 2015 - 17:07:15 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mon Jun 01 2015 - 17:12:12 CEST