> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> But in the general case, I feel that downstream packaging
Wouter> changes belong downstream, not in Debian; therefore it is
Wouter> best to recommend that, in the general case, packages in
Wouter> Debian do not switch on dpkg-vend
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:14:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
> >> tries to use unmodified Debian
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
>> tries to use unmodified Debian source packages where possible.
>> In some cases I think that the m
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> That said, even there there are tradeoffs.
> As an example, Ubuntu tries to use unmodified Debian source packages
> where possible. In some cases I think that the maintenance advantages
> of doing this and the slight but real political
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be
permitted in the archive [and 1 more messages]"):
> So imagine that Ubuntu and several other downstreams care more about
> security and hardening than they do about backward compatibility and
> they
Actually directly switching on vendor seems fairly bad.
However, to the extent that downstream changes can be encapsulated into
options/deltas that someone might want, I think it may often be
reasonable to carry the delta in Debian.
So imagine that Ubuntu and several other downstreams care more a
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be
permitted in the archive"):
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> > IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
> > prefered solution to the problem that vendor-spe
7 matches
Mail list logo
