Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Even simpler: Fixes: #nnn downgrades the severity to wishlist, adds "To
> be merged upstream:" to the subject, and sends a message saying "This
> bug has been fixed by patching the original sources; we will forward
> this patch to the upstream authors and close this bug report when
> upgrading the Debian package to an upstream source in which the patch
> has been merged or obsoleted".
I don't really like the idea to have "Fixes:" and "Closes:" do different
things. It basically means the same thing and would lead to
very different results. That's not something that I'd like to implement in
dpkg-dev (with my dpkg maintainer hat).
I would suggest as alternative, that this information should be stored in
the fields preceding the patch. And dpkg-genchanges/dak shouldn't process
anything with respect to that.
However the tool that grabs the patch and publish it in patches.debian.org
should certainly tag the bug number with divergence. (And since that tool
could use real patches coming from 3.0 (quilt) packages or generated
patches coming from any other VCS-based source packages, everybody would
Author: Random Joe <email@example.com>
The behaviour A was wrong when B. This patch makes sure to do C in that
case as this is what the user expects.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :