Re: A patch added to mozc by submit-request 114205

At Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:07:43 +0900,
Fuminobu TAKEYAMA wrote:
> 
> Hi, Marguerite Su and M17N maintainers,
> 
> I am confused by the big patch for Fcitx added to the mozc package yesterday
> without any reviews and discussion.
> 
> https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/114205
> 
> 
> My concern is that this patch decrease maintainability of that package.
> 
> As you know, Mozc's release cycle is very short.
> Who will maintain the patch?
> Will Fcitx maintainers (including the patch developer?) release new patch
> for every Mozc release?
> I cannot think they will do so, as long as I read their website.
> 
> This is why the openSUSE packaging policy says "Ask upstream first", right?

Yes, exactly.

The right process would be to merge fcitx support to the mozc
upstream.  Was the patch submitted to mozc at all?  If not, let's do
it first.

> It is, however, good news that fcitx support Mozc.
> I guess this can be demonstrated by creating separated OBS package like
> fcitx-mozc if some header files of mozc are packaged.

Hm, let's see whether this is feasible.  It's a backend-integration
part, thus it includes lots of internal headers.  It might be that
we'll end up with packaging all internal headers into mozc-devel
package or such...

> Anyway, I would like to roll back for now because mozc is now really essential
> package for Japanese users.
> If the patch is the best solution and users need fcitx support,
> shall we add the patch again?

Basically it's permitted to keep patches in the package, too.  But
this is only when the patches are properly maintained and carried
forward with the version update, etc.

An option at this time is to allow the conditional build of mozc with
or without fcitx.  If the update breaks the fcitx patch, then simply
disable fcitx.  That is, the version update has a higher priority than
the internal patch.


thanks,

Takashi
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]