Field "Upstream Status" in patch headers

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Tue Aug 17 12:02:56 PDT 2004


Matthew Burgess wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:21:42 -0500
>Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>In which case they could be submitted as "Do not submit" with an
>explanation that doing so would be futile or is simply impossible. 
>
>  
>
>>Stifling the submission of patches simply because they
>>aren't/can't/won't be submitted upstream serves no good purpose.
>>    
>>
>
>But, IMO it does.  We don't want have to maintain these patches
>across upstream version upgrades.  Only if they're submitted upstream
>can this potential maintenance burden be lifted.  Plus of course, the
>wider audience that will benefit from the patch being applied upstream
>as opposed to just being local to the patches project here in LFS/BLFS
>land!
>
>  
>
>>Of course, this is just an opinion.
>>    
>>
>
>As is/was mine of course :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Matt.
>  
>
If it's an LFS only patch I usually put N/A.

-- 
------
jim at linuxfromscratch.org
lfs at jg555.com

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

FWD: 275410
IPKall: 360-968-1517




More information about the patches mailing list