[arch-general] Upstream bugs, patches

[Nagy Gabor]

> > And I don't hear much complaints about the distro-patching from
> > developers (exceptions: Jörg Schilling for example). A bit going
> > further, I think that "patchability" is one of the main power of
> > open source; and I see nothing wrong (fundamentally) in the common
> > practice, that distros supply "mini-fork" packages to satisfy their
> > users' taste in the heterogeneous linux community (some users like
> > eye-candy others are minimalistic etc). Usually I enjoy _usable_
> > "vanilla" packages (that's why I am AL user).
> > 
> 
> Again, when there is a really unusable / broken package, it's very 
> likely not because of the vanilla philosophy, but because of the lack
> of time of developers.
> And as far as I am concerned, Arch provides working packages, so I
> would say it's doing pretty well overall. There are probably
> exceptions that confirm the rule, but that's life, nothing is
> perfect :)
> 

Yes, I would like to believe, that you are right here. But the mc bug I
showed you was _closed_ by reasoning: 'Implemented/Merged upstream'.
And the same reasoning for this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5546

Bye