Re: Centralized darcs
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 <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,
please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks.
> > 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?
Yes, I think I do.
> 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
What I wrote is 'are not supposed to be aware of your SCM' in the first place
(just look above), which makes significant difference.
> 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)
> > 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.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB