Re: why do people introduce stup^Wstrange changes to quilt 3.0 format
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 05/18/2012 11:37 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>>> I'm confused concerning the above; the point of a VCS in this context
>>>> is to track changes to the source package, and the patches are
>>>> themselves important changes to the source package. If you have Git
>>>> ignore the patches then Git doesn't have a complete view of the
>>>> source package anymore. Why would you want to do that?
>>>
>>> Git does have a complete view. What the above does, is tell
>>> dpkg-source to fold any changes made to the upstream sources into a
>>> single patch. Since the git tree already has the patches applied (with
>>> upstream sources on a different branch, most probably), it has a full
>>> view.
>>>
>>> This basically folds whatever patches the git tree has over upstream,
>>> outside of debian/ into a single file. That's about it. Since that
>>> file is generated, it has no business staying in git.
>>
>> Doing that is the most stupid idea ever. All it does is to ensure that
>> you package can't be NMUed sanely and that people who need to work with
>> the sources and your patches for whatever reason have to clone your git,
>> which might be not available or just too large for them to download - so
>> at the end changes are high that they end up with a largish unreadable
>> patch, similar to the mess we get from Ubuntu sometimes. The only thing
>> that makes sense would be to use git-format-patch to export your patches
>> to debian/patches and list them in the series file. Or use gbp-pq, which
>> was made exactly for that.
>
> Uhm, please switch around "git" and "quilt", and say that again.
No.
> Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to use
> both it and a modern one, and when someone tries, this ends up with no end
> of woe. Quilt sprinkles its modifications around the source, breaks
> timestamps causing unnecessary rebuilds, breaks basic VCS abilities like
> bisection, makes it really hard to even review history, and so on.
If you get a cd image with sources nobody cares what the maintainer used to
manage the package. A developer without internet access cares about usable
patches in debian/patches instead of a big, uncommented blob. Quilt is not a
VCS at all, it is a system to apply and unapply a list of patches, nothing more.
> You complain about forcing people to use git, while you push quilt onto
> everyone else. And while git can do every single thing quilt can do, the
> reverse is thoroughly untrue.
See above. To use patches in debian/patches you don't even need quilt. People
might not have access to your famous git repository.
> 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.
Quilt doesn't us a special format. You can just go and run git-format-patch to
export patches from git.
If you want people to be able to work with your patches *AND* you don't like
to ship a proper (quilt) set of patches, figure out what needs to be done to
get 3.0 (git) accepted (like automatic removal of branches which are not part
of the packaging, ensuring that source versions which were not distributable
were removed from the repository, and so on...) - then you can happily assume
that people are able to use your git repository as they actually get a copy on CD.
- --
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=oQ0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: