pin <voidpin%protonmail.com@localhost> writes: > ------- Original Message ------- > On Monday, June 20th, 2022 at 11:47 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote: > >> Overall, the effort to address this seems really large compared to how >> things would be if patches were filed upstream as our documented >> procedures say they should be. > > True, but there are certain patches that are just unacceptable upstream. > For example, a patch that switches off some unwanted feature at our end but doesn't make sense to switch-off in the more general context. That should be a a patch to add a --disable-foo switch, and then we can use it. > In such cases, I think it should be acceptable to carry the patches in pkgsrc, or am I wrong? Yes, we can carry patches that upstream has rejected, or for packages with non-functioning upstreams (as noted in DESCR). But I think that's a minority of our patches.
Description: PGP signature