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

Re: How to cope with patches sanely

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:48:47 +0000, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.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
into wig&pen.

>         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 (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: