On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:02:55 +0100 Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 23:45:01 +0530 > Pirate Praveen <prav...@onenetbeyond.org> wrote: >> If this argument is accepted, we will not be able to package a fork >> because the original upstream won't accept a patch against the fork. >> Similarly we'd be able to package only HEAD of the vcs as they >> usually accept patched only against HEAD. Porting patches is an >> essential part of packaging. By choosing to maintain this source, I >> accept this challenge. If I cannot keep the package rc bug free >> otherwise, it will be removed any way.
I think the part about packaging only VCS HEAD is an excellent point, and really needs to be addressed by people who want to argue that concatenating files should be an RC bug. > Where do you get this crazy and fanciful notion that upstream are > somehow second-class community members? Upstream are users of the I don't think he was saying that at all. If I consider this from an upstream point of view, I'd say that the packaging being behind latest upstream version is a more significant issue than the packaging using source transformations like concatenating files. People who want to make large, complex changes are likely to use upstream files directly anyway, so that limits the extra work caused by working around such transformations. Packaging old versions causes similar issues for patches based on outdated code, and additionally several other issues, like preventing upstream from getting timely feedback about changes and causing upstream to receive complaints about already fixed bugs. In essence, my central point is that you cannot consistently believe BOTH of these: * packaging not being up to date with latest upstream is just a wishlist bug * packaging concatenating source files is such a horrible bug that the package should be removed from Debian If you want to argue "upstream convenience" as a reason for the second, then you must also accept that being behind latest upstream is a lot more serious than wishlist. If the TC wants to make a statement against concatenating files, then I hope any such statement also mentions that being behind latest upstream should be considered an equally serious bug. If the TC is not willing to consider such an addition, then they should IMO also reconsider whether it's really valid to use upstream preferences as a justification for such a statement at all.
