August 29th, 2003

Enterprise Bridge

The Fink project: A bunch of... finks?

I need one lousy tool out of the mjpegtools package in order to create DVD menus. The actual mjpegtools package doesn't compile for OS X, but the Fink project has ported it. Unfortunately, the Fink crowd doesn't feel it neccessary to make their modified source easily available. Worse, they're lousy about contributing patches back to the original package maintainer. From the FAQ:

Q2.1: Do you contribute your patches back to the upstream maintainers?

A: We're trying to. Sometimes sending patches back is easy and everyone is happy once the next release of the package is out. Unfortunately with most packages it's not that easy. Some common problems:

* The Fink package maintaner is very busy and doesn't have the time to send the patch and accompanying explanations to the upstream maintainers.

Read: The Fink package maintainer is a lazy fuck.

* The upstream maintainers reject the patch. There are lots of valid reasons for this. Most upstream maintainers have a strong interest in clean code, clean configure checks, and compatibility with other platforms.

Read: The Fink package maintainer is a lazy fuck.

* The upstream maintainers accept the patch, but it takes some weeks or months until they release a new version of their package.

Read: The original package maintainer is a lazy fuck.

* The package has been abhandoned [sic] by the original authors and there will be no new releases into which the patch could be merged.

Read: The Fink project is a bunch of lazy fucks. For most OSI licensed software, there's nothing stopping them from picking up "maintainer" status for a package.
  • Current Mood
    annoyed annoyed