[CentOS-devel] specspo issue, and not an RPM issue

[R P Herrold]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2009, at 5:21 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
>>
>> I would apply a 'lazy fix', next time we have occasion to
>> visit the underlying packages, at most

** chuckle **

> I would prefer a more active fix such as
      ... snip ... energetic approach outlined
> But be lazy schmuck if you want. ;-)

--------------------------------------------

The context on the 'lazy' referent was not surfaced by me 
but my full remark was this in some discussion off the forum:

But then it seems the text source may reside on some patch we 
applied to a translation .po [I am in limited compute richness 
and cannot conveniently run this down presently]

To the extent that upstream has varied from their announced 
intent (by the trademark guidance piece they put out) of 
confining the packages needing patches to the initial two [and 
we ran an effort on this a few cycles back], they earn the 
confusion themselves.  We can chase and locally fix their 
errors while they move forward, or we can pursue our own 
agendas

I think our agenda is to use good faith effort, and then fix 
the issue in the next point release [certainly a leisurely 
pace toward fixing 'cosmetic errors' essentially matches that 
policy used toward cosmetic matters upstream]

I do not see mention that a bug was filed, and to the extent 
that forum answers by 'authoritative answerers' there do not 
feed the bug tracker, we hide knowledge of possible errors 
from ourselves by leaving it only in the forum

----------------------------------------------

so, only 'sort of' lazy -- a leisurely one, sort of a copy on 
write of new updates  ;)

-- Russ herrold