|
From: | Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - |
Subject: | [Gnewsense-dev] Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: 9wm - No FSF Free |
Date: | Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:54:01 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090701) |
Yavor Doganov wrote:
Karl Goetz wrote:9wm's Debian package has no patches/ directory, which AIUI means there is no changes to the package from upstream.Not at all. It is not a requirement to have the patches separated in debian/patches; in fact some maintainers prefer direct changes to the upstream source (sorted out in the VCS with topic branches, usually). $ filterdiff -z -x '*/debian/*' 9wm_1.2-8.diff.gz | diffstat client.c | 2 ++ error.c | 1 + event.c | 3 ++- fns.h | 4 ++-- main.c | 1 + manage.c | 10 +++++----- menu.c | 6 ++++-- 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) The package in DeltaH indeed has changes (the version in Debian sid as well).
caution (3) any unapproved changes in functionality are either (i) only distributed as patchescan we have the actual changes it would be interesting to see them here as grammar and spacing changes or functionality
my own reading is if it is coding style and not functional changes then using the concept of the "reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus" we could make a real decision so far all I have is a hunch I am not right ;-)
I would be right if it was the removal of scanf() and replacing it with something a tad saner it would not be a functional change ... but then that is me.
You need not just to be binary in your reasoning, you also need to know where your borders lie.
Someone could just change the name of the package and be happier I suppose!
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |