On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 13:15 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > Hiyas, > > I want to propose to extend the following Guideline (given it is one): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus > > Imho it should also include other content that is added to the Package but not > a patch, e.g. .desktop files, manpages and icons. -1 I don't find this proposal useful, for several reasons: 1. Many patches actually are distribution-specific hacks and not suitable for upstream submission. Upstreams will very unlikely consider them, nor does it make sense to communicate them to upstreams. 2. You are presuming maintainers are actively collaborating/actively participating with an "active upstream". In many cases, this does not apply for one or more reasons. 3. Such "annotations" add bureaucratic bloat. They tend to outdate and rot over longer terms. 4. Maintainers already have the liberty of adding comments/explanations to patches rsp. to specs, rsp. to communicate issues to upstreams. I don't see much sense/use in extending the FPC to "enforce" or "endorse" what I feel is your personal preference, which likely fits into your personal situation. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging