Re: [PATCH] fvwm reproducibility patch

[N <ng0%n0.is@localhost>]

N transcribed 1.6K bytes:
> Greg Troxel transcribed 682 bytes:
> > My concern is with the pkgsrc maintenance burden of carrying patches, if
> > they belong upstream, and if they don't allow us to actually get
> > reproducible builds.  That was making me think about the general issue
> > and having a way to get reproducible builds for a few packages, before
> > we start applying changes to many packages.  As time goes on, the rest
> > of the world is moving to reproducible builds as normal, and being on
> > the leading edge without actually getting reproducibility seems to be
> > accepting pain for not actually getting the benefit.
> > 
> > As I tried to say earlier, for a small number of packages, I don't think
> > it hurts in any measurable way to do this, and I don't object.
> 
> Sorry for waiting so long with an active reply: Would it be okay if
> I went ahead and applied the patch I mentioned in this thread
> (reproducible fvwm)? Upstream is not cooperative (on fvwm2) but acknowledges
> to be working on a future version of fvwm instead - every new feature
> gets into this future version, they take no patches for old version.
> I tried to upstream the patch back then (2018?).
> 
> >>> Please note that FVWM2 is in maintenance mode. This means it won't be receiving any new features. Bug fixes will be to the core of FVWM2 only. Any problems found in modules will be to fix segfaults only.
> >>>
> >>> All users are hereforth encouraged to use fvwm3, and to report any bugs.
> 
> from https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm
> 
> in https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/issues/67 they responded:
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think I'll be applying this to fvwm2, but when fvwm3 gets off the ground, this won't be a problem.


This also implies updating wm/fvwm to a more recent release (2.6.8, in pkgsrc we have
2.6.5). I'll see if  the 2 currently included patches are still necessary.