On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. >> >> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, >> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). >> >>> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which >>> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it). If >>> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak >>> up. >> >> Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about, >> see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary. >> Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details... >> >>> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in >>> a different way... >> >> It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ... >> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo >> > > Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem > to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the > package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc > files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if > there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a > special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all
Exactly. I don't understand why this is an issue at all. Obviously, if upstream does not ship a .pc file or ships a broken one, we try to work with upstream to get it fixed on their end. If they are uncooperative, we fix it on our end. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
