On Sun Feb 03 10:38, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > You agree on the fact that a Debian source package isn't (or shouldn't > for big enough packages) be the preferred form of modification. Then > it's that it's an exchange format. As an exchange format quilt is > brilliant, because it holds *EVERYTHING* a SCM need to figure out how to > rebuild meregeable and rebaseable patches from it. So why bother with > anything else ? > > An exchange format *Must* be simple. That's the very reason why Debian > uses rfc822-style flat files everywhere, and that's one of our best > strength: > (1) this format is ubiquitous in Debian ; > (2) it's really easy to parse (in the Debian flavour that doesn't need > the stupid quoted-printeable escapings and so on at least) ; > (3) it's human readable ; > (4) implementing parsers and generators take usually less than a > hundred lines in a high level enough language. > > .git.tar.gz fails in those 4 points. > > What I ask you is just to be consistent. Either we _will_ modify > source packages, either we won't. If we will, adding features to it is a > good idea, if we won't, let's just focus on how to let it be expressive > enough to encode in it all what we use as new features upstream from it. > And as a matter of a fact, quilt is enough for that. Full ACK Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature