Licensing and technical issues with a Wine package that includes the Mozilla ActiveX Control

hi,
On Mo, 2005-11-28 at 17:46 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Your solution to "packagers introduce bugs" is "bugs should be
> reported to the packager first"? What a strange idea - why not just
> eliminate this middle layer entirely 
because upstream is clueless about the automated build system, the
different relationships, transitions of stacks and versions of libraries
the distributor uses ?
how can a distributor provide the right QA, match deadlines etc with
your proposed model ?

it takes quite some time to produce packages of a decent quality and it
also requires to take responsibilities and decisions to not harm the
distribution as a whole ... like not shipping random binaries in the
source the distributor cant fix if bugs or security breakages are
discovered for example...

if i discover a bug in a package of a certain distro, i will indeed talk
to the packager first, since he will know if the bug might be caused by
a certain library version or by the build system that was used to
compile exactly this package (or even by his decision not to ship random
binaries)...

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20051128/1cbd015d/attachment.pgp