Re: why do people introduce stup^Wstrange changes to quilt 3.0 format
* Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> [120518 11:37]:
> You complain about forcing people to use git, while you push quilt onto
> everyone else.
> [...]
>
> I really wish there was a "3.0" format besides "3.0 (quilt)", so people are
> not mislead into thinking they have to (or even, would gain anything) from
> writing patches in quilt's format.
Noone is forcing quilt on anyone.
We need a source format that can properly represent changes to the
upstream source code and that is best done as some series of patches.
Using a format that is a subset of quilt without all the magic makes
sense as that makes it easy for anyone to write or read.
(It's just a set of patches to be applied with -p1 and a file to list
the names of those patches line by line, i.e. no special sort algorithm
for filesnames needs to be defined).
One of the biggest faults of "3.0 (quilt)" is its name. It should really
have been called "3.0 (patches)" or even better "3.0 (non-native)".
A proper package should either have no upstream changes or broken down
changeset that can actually be applied. If you have those changes it is
trivial to create a "3.0 (quilt)" source package out of that.
And yes, git is the better quilt for managing a source tree. Which is
why I use it exclusively to work on my "3.0 (quilt)" packages.
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: