On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:13, Anthony Towns wrote: > No, not really. *shrug* Well, I don't really want to give up that easily. I am sure we can come to a rough consensus. As far as I can see, at this point, the only thing we are really discussing is whether patches should be in their own toplevel .tar in the .dsc, or just secreted in debian/patches. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of the two different approaches. I may have missed something, so please mention it if I did. * aj format Advantages: - dpkg-source v2 would sort of be a "superset" of v1 Disadvantages: - Separate diffs would be a bit tricky to manipulate * walters format Advantages: - Fairly simple to understand - Would support adding binary files to packages in all forms Disadvantages: - grepping through a package source would sometimes turn up hits in debian/patches, if you weren't careful to exclude the debian/ dir. Now, I think looking at diffs is going to be a very common operation. It's something that will happen when you're upgrading a package to a new upstream version, and if you want to add a patch. Anything that makes that more difficult is a bad thing. Obviously it's not horrible to have to unpack a tarball to a temporary directory, drop a file in there, then repack it, but why go through all that trouble if you don't have to? As for the "grep disadvantage" of my format, I think that's not really an issue. I mean, if you just want to grep through just the upstream source, you should exclude the whole debian/ directory anyways. After all, function names and variables could often be in debian/changelog anyways. And the "superset" thing isn't important from an implementation point of view, and can actually be bad from a user point of view; we'd want the two formats to be clearly distinguishable.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part