Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

[Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>]

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 
> Have you tried to write the field for your cases? The spec is relatively
> light-weight even if it tries to support the more complicated case too.

Yes, and the examples I mentioned are/were real cases.

> 
> Description: Fix typo
> Origin: vendor
> Forwarded: yes

The thing is, if the patch is already called fix_typo.patch, and am already
describing it in the changelog with a proper entry like

* debian/patches/fix_typo.patch:
  Fix typo in the main menu: s/setings/settings

I would actually be duplicating the description (the patch name being the
short description, and the changelog entry the long description).
The only piece of information that is missing is the forwarded field; hence
my proposed simplification.

> 
> Description: Fix foo in bar
> Origin: backport: commit:08bfa6f46f5eab33e1d608870cca71632d051ddf
> 

* debian/patches/fix_foo_in_bar.patch:
  Cherry-pick commit 08bfa6f46 by upstream to fix foo in bar.

> Description: Change splash image (debian-specific branding)
> Origin: vendor
> Forwarded: not-needed

* debian/patches/change_splash_image.patch:
  Use a Debian-branded splash image instead of the Foo-branded version
  shipped by upstream. Thanks to John Doe <foo@bar.tld> for the art work.

All I see here is that the tools should be able to extract the information
from the changelog, which often includes a bug number and other bits of
information.

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert