On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:17:22PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:36:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "utsl" == utsl <email@example.com> 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. If they have a debian mirror it is less of an issue. But yes having Matthew and others comment would help here. > > > 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 Agreed. My proposal works well though with just patching debian directories. My sourceforge ID is hartmans.
Description: PGP signature