patching upstream -- why not? (was: Re: Bug#324726: jed: Move /etc/jed* under /etc/<package>/)

[Jörg Sommer]

Hello G.,

G. Milde schrieb am Wed 31. Aug, 10:19 (+0200):
> On 23.08.05, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > Package: jed
> > Version: 0.99.16-5
> > Severity: minor
> > 
> > The /etc hierarchy is quite polluted with various configuration files.
> > It would be better if packages kept configuration files under their
> > own directories (easier for backups etc.).
> > 
> > Please move 
> > 
> >     /etc/jed.conf
> >     /etc/jed-init.d/
> > 
> > Under common directory => /etc/<package> like
> > 
> >     /etc/jed/config 
> >     /etc/jed/jed-init.d/
> 
> Unfortunately, the path /etc/jed.conf is "hardcoded" into the upstream
> release, changing it would introduce one more Debian-specific patch (and
> incompatibility with original documentation ...).

Why do you think we should not patch upstream files? It's common
practice. Which does not mean it is good or we should do it heavily, but
there are some problems, we can fix with patches. John is IMO a person
who would see that it works before he do any changes. It's hard to get
any changes into JED or SLang, more than ever if they a distribution
specific.


Regards, Jörg.
-- 
Wer A sagt, muß nicht B sagen. Er kann auch erkennen, daß A falsch war.
      	    	      	       	       	    	(Erich Kästner)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-jed-devel/attachments/20050831/af059723/attachment.pgp