| |||||||||||||
Packaging and patchingPackaging and patchingPosted Aug 24, 2009 14:53 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868)In reply to: Packaging and patching by dgm Parent article: On properly packaging perl Why? Because I like distros that have everything under the sun, and work as an intermediary between possibly-uncooperative upstreams and me. And who do the work that most upstreams don't do to make the software work together easily and consistently. There have been a couple disastrous changes, indeed, but the vast majority of minor modifications I greatly appreciate having.
(Log in to post comments)
Packaging and patching Posted Aug 25, 2009 7:04 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
I also did like them, back when there was not much OSS software. But it's not 1995 any more, and now we have loads and loads of OSS packages for almost everything.
I tend to think that the 80/20 rule also applies to software (yes, all software), thus much of what is there is crap. A process that sinks crap and lets the good stuff stay afloat is really needed to ensure a sane evolution of the good software. Some distributions (Debian and Ubuntu at least) let this up to the user, in the form of a popularity contest. Wrong. This is _the_ task that the packager should be doing. All those "minor modifications" just make things _unnecessarily_ harder for everybody.
Packaging and patching Posted Aug 25, 2009 15:38 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] Well, I like my software modified and configured to work better as a whole. And I like that no matter what software I want (even if you consider it crap), it's almost certainly already available in Debian.There's space in the world for multiple distributions with different goals, and I bet there's at least one which doesn't modify upstream source code that you can use.
|
|||||||||||||