Re: Proposed patch management/build solution

[utsl@quic.net]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:36:01PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "utsl" == utsl  <utsl@quic.net> 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?

	---Nathan