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

Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This only works, if the diff's are independend or one diff is diff are on
> > the top of each other. So I do not see the advantage of many diffs.
> The advantage of having multiple diffs is that distinct changes can be
> kept distinct.  You do need a system for ensuring that the diffs are
> applied in the correct order and so on, but given that multiple diffs
> are very much nicer.  It becomes very much more obvious what has been
> changed and how, not to mention far simpler to adjust the set of changes
> that have been applied.  As an added bonus, the handling of upstream
> source that include patches is more elegant.

Is it realy so much easier?
I do not have experiences with maintaining patched software. But I
experienced for example, that I had to made major changes to apply a 
patch for a 2.0.30 kernel to a debianiced 2.0.36 kernel.
And with I the software I develop, there is seldom one patch that would
not collide with an other.
I imagine it much easier to have the orginal code and the debian code,
where I can get from one to the other through one diff. 
Correct me, if I err, but when you have an code with two patches and 
want to change patch 1 to an newer version of this, wouldn't you need to
change patch 2 then, too?

> Aside from requiring CVS this looses information for anyone without
> access to the repository.  That's a hassle when you get maintainer
> changes and makes the packaghe source itself much less useful than it
> could be.

I think aside of one diff or many diffs a list of patches done to the code
and where you got them from is a good thing to have in every package. 

  Bernhard R. Link

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: