Re: [PATCH] fvwm reproducibility patch

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

ng0%n0.is@localhost writes:

>> I am sympathetic in general, but am also wary of engaging in
>> large scale pushing of wet noodles uphill if upstreams don't want to
>> take patches.  (Any one package of course doesn't hurt.)
>
> If possible, we should use less maintenance requiring patch methods
> for this, in my opinion. So simply sed and awk.

That sounds definitely preferable.

> If patches were to be created, they could easily be shared with other
> projects (example, this patch taken mostly from OpenBSD ports with
> some adoption to the portable fvwm release).
> I'm missing a broader exchange of patches, regardless of upstreaming
> or not, between the projects working on this. Preferable in a searchable
> format. I track multiple projects only to keep up with possible
> solutions and problems.

That is sort of like creating a fork via a patchset.  Perhaps a
reasonable thing, but pkgsrc has documented that patches are supposed to
be filed upstream, to try to minimize the forkiness of pkgsrc, both to
benefit others and particularly to avoid people doing updates having to
merge lots of patches to the new version.  Of course, uncooperative
upstreams are a real issue.