Re: Centralized darcs
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:08:00AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > 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 <frank@debian.org> writes:
> > > > > George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> 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,
>
> please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks.
I did. Using an SCM and shipping a monolithic diff.gz makes it *easier* for
the 'apt-get source' user to work with the package, because there isn't a
randomly-chosen "debian patch manager" in the way to confuse and confound.
> > source and why they have been applied."
> >
> > Which is it? Clearly identified patches, or "not supposed to be aware"?
>
> Obviously 'SCM' is what you missed above, which led you to such a confusion.
> Yes, people might be able to apt-get source and have patches which are to be
> (un)applied to the upstream source clearly identified without having to
> bother with any SCM to do the _patching_ work. (SCM == VCS)
They don't have to know anything about the SCM to manipulate a monolithic
diff.gz package. This is in contrast to a "patch-managed" package, where
you *MUST* learn the patch management system to make a minimal, useful NMU
patch.
> > > 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.
>
> There is no signle SCM you can do packaging either.
No, there isn't, but the difference is that the SCM doesn't get in your way.
- Matt
Reply to: