Re: Centralized darcs
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Frank Küster <email@example.com> writes:
> > > George Danchev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >>> > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
> > >>> > upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless one
> > >>> > knows where to find
> > >>>
> > >>> First, what is a "Debian-specific patch?" Isn't everything in diff.gz
> > >>> that?
> > >>
> > >> Right, but you have parts which touch upstream files (debian/patches/*),
> > >> and parts which does not (debian/!patches). I prefer them to be clearly
> > >> separated when the whole debian source package is unpacked.
> > >
> > > Not only that. Many packages make changes to upstream files that are
> > > Debian-specific (e.g. for using infrastructure or libraries that don't
> > > exist outside), but also changes to upstream files that will/should be
> > > temporary because upstream will apply the same patch, has been asked to,
> > > or the patch has been taken from their development version.
> > Iff we use a branch to each change we can have same behaviour using a
> > SCM but anyone that would want to change or contrib changes will need
> > to learn how we deal with this all.
> This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' users, which
> are not supposed to be aware of your SCM, where your repo is, patches applied
> to the upstream source and why they have been applied.
Do you think you can stick to one story for a whole thread? Do you want to
know what patches are in there, or not? First you said "I prefer them to be
clearly separated when the whole debian source package is unpacked." and
"Some people prefer to have debian-specific patches (applied to the upstream
source) separated and with comments appended" (I presume you're part of the
"Some people"). Yet now you're saying "'apt-get source' users [...] are
not supposed to be aware of [...] patches applied to the upstream source and
why they have been applied."
Which is it? Clearly identified patches, or "not supposed to be aware"?
> I.e. if you have patches, do them debian way (using a debian patch system)
Please identify "the debian way", so I may start using it.
Oh wait. There isn't any single Debian way. Never has been, almost
certainly never will be.