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

Re: dpkg-source v2



On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 05:50:14PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> 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? 

Well, I had been going to reply to this saying "I think everything's been
said, so how about we just get on with speccing and implementing the bits
that make sense to everyone", but then I thought of something else to say.

The obvious thing to think about now that we've probably got a good idea
of what we both think makes sense is to come up with something different
that has all the wins and none of the losses.

So, here's a thought experiment. Let's say we go my way, and then later
decide I was deluded, and debian/patches is much more convenient. If so,
we can make dpkg-source -x extract the .orig's, apply the patches, then
unpack the patches into foo-1.2/debian/patches/. When we're building, we
can just tar up debian/patches/* as the new .diff.tar. Easy enough, no?

Alternatively, if we go your way, and then later decide you were deluded,
and debian/patches is a nuisance, we have more of a problem: dpkg-source
-x has to unpack everything, apply the patches in debian/patches, rm/mv
debian/patches somewhere out of the way; and when you're trying to add
patches, you don't really have anywhere to do it.

> > 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.  

Unless you don't have one (Debian native packages), or it's got lots of
unrelated stuff (lots of Debian specific stuff, or a large Debian native
package), or the patches aren't in that component (debian/patches ->
../foo/bar/patches, eg).

> 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/*. 

Eh? I've wanted to look at Red Hat's patches to their programs a lot
more often than I've wanted to look at their packaging setup. I assume the
converse applies.

> 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 you're over-rating it. "cd debian/patches" would be "an extra
step" too.

> And I just haven't seen you put forth any advantages for your proposed
> format that would make up for this.

Well, yes, you have. That *you* don't think they outweigh the disadvantage
doesn't mean they haven't been put forth.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpue81u8b5wI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: