Re: Proposed patch management/build solution
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:36:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "utsl" == utsl <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> utsl> This is a good idea. I'm interested in it. Why not simply
> utsl> import the standard Debian source packages as vendor
> utsl> branches, and use the normal CVS facilities to track the
> utsl> changes? This seems simpler than keeping patches in separate
> utsl> files, as you describe below.
> Two reasons. First is the bandwith requirement. Some people involved
> may not be close to the central CVS server.
cvsup? They have to download the source packages anyway. Perhaps people could
comment on how big an issue it is.
> Second is that DBS style packages do not work well with CVS at all.
> Checking in tar files sucks.
Hmm. I can't think of a good solution to that. Only thing I can say is that
I've noted that the vast majority of changes that I've made were to the debian
directory, mostly debian/rules. I do recall doing a patch for a DBS package,
shadow I think, but I put the patch into the debian directory instead of
changing the tar file.
> I'll try and put things together and once I have something perhaps I
> can get added to the sourceforge project so I can check it in.
> I agree with your analysis of the three kinds of patches.
I think I may be able to add you to it. What's your id on sourceforge?