Re: How to handle Debian patches
Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > Le dimanche 18 mai 2008 à 12:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>> >> As a Debian package maintainer however I'm convinced that we'd be better
>> >> served by having only native + 3.0 quilt. The VCS comes _before_ the
>> >> source package and the source package is just an export from the VCS.
>> >> However I think that .git.tar.gz would be acceptable as replacement
>> >> for native packages (like debhelper for example).
>> > Full ACK.
>> Full NACK.
> Please stop using "NACK" on public lists, it's badly connotated. It looks
> like you're forbidding someone else to do something as if you had some
> veto power.
>> I would rather have native packages in 3.0 quilt format. Initialy they
>> would have no patches but NMU uploads would automatically generate
> If the maintainer decides to use a git-based format it's probably also
> because he prefers receving NMU as git branch in a new upload instead of
> a patch.
> So I don't see why you would refuse that liberty to the maintainer.
> It's not like the "native" package option will disappear...
Because the git format is imho conceptualy broken and the
implementation is far from completely thought out. The strongest
point against it is that the user has to learn git to use it.
The quilt format on the other hand can be used transparently instead
of v1 format. The user does not need to learn quilt to use it. That
aspect can be totally ignored unless you want to use it.
The maintainer can use whatever he likes. It is trivial to generate a
quilt format package from git/arch/hg/svn and I'm sure there will be a
RCS-build-package soon enough that does that. The maintainer can also
import the quilt patches a NMU would add to the deb to the RCS
repository. There is no real drawback in using quilt format even if
you use git.