Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be permitted in the archive
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be permitted in the archive"):
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:39:23PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > The Committee therefore resolves that:
> > >
> > > 1. Any use of dpkg's vendor-specific patch series feature is a bug for
> > > packages in the Debian archive (including contrib and non-free),
> >
> > This misses an important part of the previous proposal:
>
> I think Phil was just intending to leave the recitals part alone, and
> proposing only a change to the operative part - not to delete the
> recitals.
>
> > The Committee recognises that there is a need for packages to behave
> > differently when built on different distributions, but this should be
> > done as part of the build process, using current and future practices
> > such as patches with conditional behaviour, patching of files during the
> > build, rather than at source unpacking time.
>
> However, now that we are talking about the recitals I would like to
> suggest that the recitals should include *maintaining different source
> packages in different distributions* as one of the suggested options.
This is not really applicable here, we are only talking about cases
where Debian maintainer and downstream distribution have in the past
explicitely moved a downstream delta into the package in Debian.
> IMO it is far superior to patches which are conditional (at runtime or
> at build-time) on dpkg-vendor and I would not like to see that
> perpetuated.
My understanding of the TC proposal so far is that this would
recommend a 1:1 conversion from vendor-specific patch series
to build-time patching. And as I said, you could even get rid
of the "after buster" part if someone has conversions for all
of the 18 affected packages ready.
My understanding of the TC proposal so far is that this would
recommend a 1:1 conversion from vendor-specific patch series
to build-time patching. And as I said, you could even get rid
of the "after buster" part if someone has conversions for all
of the 18 affected packages ready.
If you want to have the status quo changed, you should IMHO ask
the TC for an explicit decision on that.
The disussion so far has not been about that topic, and adding
a last-minute insertion questioning the status quo into the
decision would not be warranted.
An ambiguous TC decision or policy wording recommending to push such
changes back downstream would also risk conflicts inside Debian if
different people would start arguing with that for whatever side
they personally prefer.
> Ian.
cu
Adrian
[1] assuming there is a good reason for doing so
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: