3 ms·

I don't think openssh upstream would accept a patch that makes ssh interpret ipv4 addresses as anything other than ipv4 addresses, and who wants to carry such a

by yrro 3y ago

I don't think openssh upstream would accept a patch that makes ssh interpret ipv4 addresses as anything other than ipv4 addresses, and who wants to carry such a patch downstream forever?

blueflow 3y ago
You don't need to merge upstream! Its your source, your build, your rules.
- yrro 3y ago
  And if you're happy to take on that work (and the associated risk) forever, go for it. For others, hacks like tnat64 work fine. They also work for lots of programs, where patching each one individually to somehow detect that it's behind NAT64 and behave differently is a lot of work!
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Maintaining your own patchset for your personal use is usually not a good use of your time and expertise. Every time someone runs a linter over upstream, you're going to have to remake that patch. Sure, it's only 20 mins... But that multiplied by every bit of software you patch and every release, and you quickly realise that a huge chunk of your life was wasted doing what is effectively busywork. Instead, contribute your time and efforts back to upstream, and now your efforts can help millions of people not just one. If others do the same, you'll see far more improvements to the software you use than you alone could ever write and maintain.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    You don't have to, its your own fork.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      But you might want to integrate security patches... And one day you're going to need to make changes to support non-ancient glibc versions etc. Even staying still in the world of software involves some level of effort.
  - KirillPanov 3y ago
    The "upstream or nothing" attitude is an attempt to erase any difference between free software and "visible source". Offering changes back to upstream is always encouraged, but whether or not it is accepted is largely irrelevant to the patch author.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      I just don't think it's a good use of OP's time - effectively developing and maintaining software for 1 user. One main benefit of software/computers/the internet is that work done by one person can benefit millions - thats what sets us apart from cavemen who had to do everything for themselves, and got a worse quality of life as a result.
      - KirillPanov 3y ago
        > software for 1 user. This bogus assumption is the whole problem with the "upstream or nothing" attitude. You're letting a single project -- and usually a single individual -- be the gatekeeper between you and the entire remainder of humanity. That is stupid.

by yrro 3y ago

I don't think openssh upstream would accept a patch that makes ssh interpret ipv4 addresses as anything other than ipv4 addresses, and who wants to carry such a patch downstream forever?

blueflow 3y ago

You don't need to merge upstream! Its your source, your build, your rules.

yrro 3y ago
And if you're happy to take on that work (and the associated risk) forever, go for it. For others, hacks like tnat64 work fine. They also work for lots of programs, where patching each one individually to somehow detect that it's behind NAT64 and behave differently is a lot of work!
londons_explore 3y ago
Maintaining your own patchset for your personal use is usually not a good use of your time and expertise. Every time someone runs a linter over upstream, you're going to have to remake that patch. Sure, it's only 20 mins... But that multiplied by every bit of software you patch and every release, and you quickly realise that a huge chunk of your life was wasted doing what is effectively busywork. Instead, contribute your time and efforts back to upstream, and now your efforts can help millions of people not just one. If others do the same, you'll see far more improvements to the software you use than you alone could ever write and maintain.
- blueflow 3y ago
  You don't have to, its your own fork.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    But you might want to integrate security patches... And one day you're going to need to make changes to support non-ancient glibc versions etc. Even staying still in the world of software involves some level of effort.
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  The "upstream or nothing" attitude is an attempt to erase any difference between free software and "visible source". Offering changes back to upstream is always encouraged, but whether or not it is accepted is largely irrelevant to the patch author.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    I just don't think it's a good use of OP's time - effectively developing and maintaining software for 1 user. One main benefit of software/computers/the internet is that work done by one person can benefit millions - thats what sets us apart from cavemen who had to do everything for themselves, and got a worse quality of life as a result.
    - KirillPanov 3y ago
      > software for 1 user. This bogus assumption is the whole problem with the "upstream or nothing" attitude. You're letting a single project -- and usually a single individual -- be the gatekeeper between you and the entire remainder of humanity. That is stupid.