Re: dpkg-source v2
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 01:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
> $ dpkg-source --extract-diffs foo_1.2.3-3.diff.tar
> $ less foo-1.2.3-3-diffs/*
> All --extract-diffs needs to do is untar into a sensibly named directory,
> which is straightforward, and easily done with plain tar.
But why even make people take that step if they don't have to?
> Which makes
> it trivial for you to do it in a non-Debian environment if you want to
> port Debian's patches to your system.
It's also just as trivial to unpack the debian.tar.bz2. You'll want to
do that anyways, since you'll often want to look at files like
debian/control and debian/changelog, in addition to debian/patches/*.
So there is no difference between our formats here.
> $ cd foo-1.2.3-4
> $ vi src/*.c
> $ rm src/*.py
> $ debian/rules build
> $ ./runme
> $ debian/rules clean
> $ dpkg-source --make-diff 'rewrite from python to C'
Sure. Here our different formats don't matter at all; --make-diff could
just as easily drop a patch into debian/patches as it could stick one in
a diffs.tar or whatever. (And actually I think the last debian/rules
clean is spurious; dpkg-source --make-diff should do that). And so
again, there is no difference between our formats here.
What this all comes down to (in my opinion) is:
- Yours would require an extra step to look at the patches
And to me, that's a pretty annoying disadvantage.
I think the normal secnario for people who want to modify a source
package would be:
dpkg-source -x foo*.dsc
# Up to here we're the same. Now, in my proposed format, you'd just say
# In your format:
# from here on we're the same again
And I just haven't seen you put forth any advantages for your proposed
format that would make up for this.