Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I'm maintaining two packages which have Ubuntu-specific patches, which have
been imported by Ubuntu maintainers giving a hand here in order to reduce the
diff with Ubuntu and maintain the packages in the same place.
I don't have strong opinions on this, but if it's suddenly forbidden, someone
(not me) has to find a way that works for derivatives and doesn't end up
multiplying sources packages, because I think we'll lose in the end.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:28:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:15:00AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I think, however, that "changing the defaults to make sure it matches
> the one for this vendor" should be done as part of the build, if at all.
> Doing it as part of unpacking the source is just wrong. When I run
> "dpkg-source -x", I expect it to behave as would "unzip" or "tar x". To
> have it act differently depending on the environment in which it is run?
> That's just perverse.
I have read this multiple time in this bug. To be it looks like you're
advocating dpkg-source *not* to apply any patches to upstream sources, then.
To be honest, I think I liked it better when patches were actually applied
during the build and not during source extract.
Regards,
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlt7Dl4ACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFu48wf7BMQoO9SvDki0/jh5KbrBo/FgrqrDKlAZzh9kKgHKfNmrnRsmbH15dcL5
7RMaF0OOXNLLXJhuFb2U7pR1/Y8UoSdaBM1lFqquX5FUldkz69b+3qJxK6oaXj5Q
7vm3IlIE2E1NqjQv70QKW6oZLXQ5HcNODurt38SKkuVNIcpcdfwY4j4T8KOA//Xk
t3JVgzSWJfIei+Bqvz+KyQP9IzE9QCQ+szX+3TB7fuafn6FL8PSRHDvQO4Q1wCOJ
W37TiUzuzj7ua7QNqq80cLmwJe6IeQoj3GAlPJRFcg+CCXoEOHVt8WUA7TgLUwT2
kfvpQ1IonB/ThkRy49BYnklWfGY5nQ==
=mEqN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: