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

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > debian/patches/ as separate file, how do I know how to update/remove/etc
> >
> > There would be no debian/patches.
> That could be bad sometimes, or most of the time. Some people prefer to have 
> debian-specific patches (applied to the upstream source) separated and with 
> comments appended, which leads to more fine-grained control.

They're doing an NMU, not completely reauthoring the package.  What do they
care about the subtleties of some random other patch?

> update it as well. They can send a patch against the toplevel soruce package 
> directory.


> > > them ? How is that different from learning darcs patch system which might
> > > happend to be new for me. There is also git arch which also pretend to be
> > > a patch system at heart. Thus the diversity is the same as in different
> > > patch system / not necessary a bat thing though /.
> >
> > They can build and use the package just like normal.  Somebody doesn't
> > have to know how to use my VC in order to work on my package, which is
> > different from the situation with the patch systems.
> But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the upstrem 
> source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun),

They're doing an NMU.  diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary.

- Matt

Reply to: