On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 05:29:05PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > On 7/6/07, Gonéri Le Bouder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >Quilt has technical advantage and is today already the most present > >solution in the repository. Since we are a team, I think it's important > >to have to most commun tool between the different packages. > > Just from curiosity, could you expand on the technical advantages > of quilt a little? I agree both that the transition to quilt can be > confusing, and that we should have one patch system for all 84 > packages maintained by the team: if this is to be quilt, some > declaration of why it is better might be handy as a reference. <sam> because dpatch-edit-patch is awfully slow, because dpatch does not tidy after a patch failed, because there is no complete equivalent to quilt push/pop with an argument, nor to quilt annotate, quilt fork... <sam> there's no difference once the package is built, but as a long-time dpatch user, I really saw the light when quilt appeared :) Quilt can deal with patch dependency which is useful for large patch sets. I know the security team dislike it. Sorry, I can't find where I read that but instead I found this quote from Joey Hess: "Use of dpatch and kin are considered harmful by most people who NMU large quantities of packages for issues such as security." http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_taste_in_the_mouth_detailed_ubuntu_patch_review/ About quilt, I use this ~/.quiltrc to avoid timestamp and local path in the patches: QUILT_DIFF_ARGS="--no-timestamps -p 0" QUILT_REFRESH_ARGS="--no-timestamps -p 0"
Description: Digital signature