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

Re: Dealing with weird upstream sources

"David Z. Maze" <dmaze@mit.edu> writes:

> What's the best way to deal with this?  My first guess is to use the
> upstream tar file as "upstream source", include a diff in the Debian
> diffs, and have debian/rules unpack the three source tarballs and
> patch it.  This also seems like a pain, both to build and to work on.
> I could also turn the three sub-tarballs into one big
> not-quite-pristine source tarball, which seems much easier to deal
> with though not quite "correct".  Any hints?

In contrast to the other people who have replied so far, I'm going to
actually recommend the first approach.  This is (I believe) similar to
what the X packages do already.  It's a blessing if you have several
different patches (e.g. you have one patch to fix this buffer
overflow, and another patch to add that commonly-requested feature)
and wish to, on upgrading to a new upstream realease, pull apart those
patches that have been applied upstream (in our example, suppose that
upstream had fixed the buffer overflow but still didn't provide the
commonly-requested feature) from the ones that haven't.

I've done the second (making your own non-pristine "upstream" version) 
with fvwm95 (though I had to do that for a different reason), and it
was a royal mistake and PITA.

Reply to: