At 08:28 AM 1/23/2005, Graham Leggett wrote: >The packaging files are then fixed, but the backport sits in the STATUS file >without enough votes to move it forward, and eventually a release is made with >broken packaging.
I think we discussed this at ApacheCon - an .rpm spec file, .pkg description, or whatever should be considered a platform issue - left to the platform maintainer and a handful of helpers to maintain under lazy concensus. Propose your fix, and let the few who follow the issue pipe up if they like. For a stable branch though - more often such changes should just be -vetoed- instead of worked-around. Packaging changes would seem to signal breakage, not a reason for a workaround. >What I propose is that changes to packaging files (such as >build/rpm/httpd.spec.in, build/pkg/buildpkg.sh, etc) should be CTR, just as >documentation files are. This will not apply if other files (source code for >example) are involved in the change. -1 not CTR. Lazy consensus. Propose, give 3 - 5 days (what ever your schedule best provides) and then commit. If folks object they will speak up - if not - then you aren't hampered. And documentation is (more often than not) R-T-C, at least in terms of translations, etc. Brad and I have operated that way for years. Bill
