Re: How to cope with patches sanely
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:48:47 +0000, Matthew Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> On Thu Feb 07 22:42, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> In the scenario Manoj presents above, the modifications applied to
>>> upstream are easily available all in one place: the foo.diff.gz.
>> But all as one patch, not as your nice separated list of commits
>> and/or branches.
> True. We now have to evaluate the benefits of providing sources
> that the binary packages are built from with no fuss (dpkg -x); which
> can then be inspected and patched.
Well, this whole thread was really about how to have our cake and eat it
too, so I don't think we should assume that we can't provide the sources
with no muss and not *also* use a patch system. That's what many of us
were trying to work towards with the discussion of how quilt would fit
> What is the use case this effort is designed to address? I
> have not actually heard NMU/porters express a need for converting
> monolithic patches to patch series. Have I missed the need statements?
It's to let those of us who think of a patch as a useful unit of
development instead of a branch continue to develop Debian packages using
the methodology that we feel makes us the most productive without causing
extra problems for the security team and NMUs.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>