[Gnewsense-dev] Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: 9wm - No FSF Free

[Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix -]

Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Karl Goetz wrote:
> > 9wm's Debian package has no patches/ directory, which AIUI means
> > there is no changes to the package from upstream.
>
> Not at all.  It is not a requirement to have the patches separated in
> debian/patches; in fact some maintainers prefer direct changes to the
> upstream source (sorted out in the VCS with topic branches, usually).
>
> $ filterdiff -z -x '*/debian/*' 9wm_1.2-8.diff.gz  | diffstat
>  client.c |    2 ++
>  error.c  |    1 +
>  event.c  |    3 ++-
>  fns.h    |    4 ++--
>  main.c   |    1 +
>  manage.c |   10 +++++-----
>  menu.c   |    6 ++++--
>  7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> The package in DeltaH indeed has changes (the version in Debian sid as
> well).

caution

  (3) any unapproved changes in functionality are either
            (i) only distributed as patches

can we have the actual changes it would be interesting to see them here 
as grammar and spacing changes or functionality

my own reading is if it is coding style and not functional changes then 
using the concept of the "reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus" we 
could make a real decision so far all I have is a hunch I am not right ;-)

I would be right if it was the removal of scanf() and replacing it with 
something a tad saner it would not be a functional change ... but then 
that is me.

You need not just to be binary in your reasoning, you also need to know 
where your borders lie.

Someone could just change the name of the package and be happier I suppose!