Re: per-topic patches

To: Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: per-topic patches
From: pin <voidpin%protonmail.com@localhost>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:57:09 +0000

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, June 20th, 2022 at 11:47 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:

> Overall, the effort to address this seems really large compared to how
> things would be if patches were filed upstream as our documented
> procedures say they should be.

True, but there are certain patches that are just unacceptable upstream.
For example, a patch that switches off some unwanted feature at our end but doesn't make sense to switch-off in the more general context.

In such cases, I think it should be acceptable to carry the patches in pkgsrc, or am I wrong?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: per-topic patches
  - From: Greg Troxel

References:
- libreswan 4.7 for wip
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: libreswan 4.7 for wip
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: libreswan 4.7 for wip
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- suggestions for url2pkg and pkglint (was: Re: libreswan 4.7 for wip)
  - From: Roland Illig
- per-topic patches (was: Re: suggestions for url2pkg and pkglint (was: Re: libreswan 4.7 for wip))
  - From: David Holland
- Re: per-topic patches
  - From: Greg Troxel

Prev by Date: Re: Un-breaking lang/tcl? (Re: 2022Q2 freeze has started)
Next by Date: Re: per-topic patches
Previous by Thread: Re: per-topic patches
Next by Thread: Re: per-topic patches
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index