[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea



On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > One obvious solution if vendor-specific series files get outlawed in 
> > Debian would be to switch from ubuntu.series to manual patching in
> > debian/rules based on dpkg-vendor(1).
> 
> Or it would mean that Ubuntu would carry a XubuntuY version and do
> manual (or automatic, based on whatever tooling they have available)
> merges from Debian, marking it clearly as a different work.

I would like you to consider - and I think this is part of what Adrian
is raising too¹ - this kind of case where the Debian maintainer *wants*
to support particular derivatives in their source package in Debian and
is willing to test it properly.

Having this facility avoids the need for any kind of source package
delta resolution process needing to take place², which might add
arbitrary delays between a new package being uploaded to unstable and
becoming available in the derivative's unstable suite. It means that the
Debian uploader does not need to become - or to find - a derivative
uploader to perform this resolution. And it avoids maintainers having to
cook up their own solution if they want to do it at build time without
tool support.

FAOD I am not challenging that the drawbacks of vendor-specific patch
series as outlined in this bug exist - just saying that Adrian's point
has some merit in that having this *kind* of support (perhaps not this
specific implementation) easily available is useful.

TBH I'm not sure what I'd ask -ctte to do with this argument. If you do
decide to outlaw the vendor-specific series, maybe advice (6.1.5) to
relevant developers to consider designing a way to better support
derivative specific patches within Debian.

Cheers for handling this issue,

-- 
Iain Lane                                  [ iain@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney@ubuntu.com ]

¹ sorry for putting words in your mouth if this isn't what you meant :-)
² in Ubuntu's case this is not automatic; a human uploader needs to at
  the very least review the output of merge-o-matic).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: