Re: How to cope with patches sanely
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 07:10:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:35:24PM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:44:20PM +0000, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > > Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > I???d be glad if we could standardize on quilt. It is the only one to be
> > > > > both simple and powerful, and I know very few people unhappy with it.
> > > > > Other patch systems I have tried (dpatch, dbs and simple-patchsys) have
> > > > > all serious flaws that end up hitting you on non-trivial packages.
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > would you mind telling us an example where simple-patchsys breaks? Or
> > > > is this more cdbs making things complicated for any non-vanilla use?
> > >
> > > For example when you need different series of patches per
> > > architecture (the libc e.g. has specific hurd patches).
> >
> > OTOH, if you'd want patches to be integrated upstream, they'd need not
> > be architecture specific (in the sense that it would make other
> > architecture fail to build or have broken code).
>
> Well, for the patches in question, we're not really sure of the
> implications on the other archs, but hurd needs it. Though I'm not 100%
> the patch I'm thinking about is still here.
>
> Also another less diputable feature, is that you can disable a patch
> and not drop it from debian/patches. The series (or 00list for the
> matter) is _really_ a feature.
>
> And when you have lots of patches (more than 10 I'd say), you
> sometimes have to reorder them, or deal with patches that conflicts
> together, and quilt-refresh is a feature that is most wanted, and you
> can't do that in simple-patchsys. In fact, simple-patchsys does not
> gives any feature except the patch/unpatch targets. quilt is a complete
> solution that gives you patch/unpatch, but really gives you tools to
> update your patches with as little pain as possible. And AFAICT, dpatch
> doesn't provide such facilities, but that may have changed.
FWIW, dpatch has a patch edition facility (and I think it's been there
since near the beginning), but it was a PITA to use on big source trees.
I don't know if that changed.
Mike
Reply to: