Field "Upstream Status" in patch headers

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Aug 17 11:24:05 PDT 2004


Matthew Burgess wrote:

> I don't think that "Not submitted" should be permitted.  A patch should
> either be submitted, or should qualify for "Do not submit" status IMO.
> I don't see any reason, apart from laziness and/or not having the
> courage of your convictions, why a patch shouldn't be submitted if it's
> not particular to LFS/BLFS ways of doing things.  All of these projects
> provide us with the means by which we can put our books together, the
> least we can do is give them something back in the way of patches.

This sounds rather harsh to me. Why can't someone submit a
patch to the LFS community and not send it upstream? There's
really no good reason to impose such a restriction.

I can think right off hand of a couple of packages, which have
patches in the LFS repository and will/can never be submitted
upstream:

The Vixie Cron patches and the patch I developed for the nss_db
package. Both of these packages have been out of maintenance by
the original maintainers for a *long* time, yet the packages still
add value to some in the community.

Stifling the submission of patches simply because they
aren't/can't/won't be submitted upstream serves no good purpose.

Of course, this is just an opinion.

-- 
Randy



More information about the patches mailing list