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

Re: Status of new source formats project

Le Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:18:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > The patch is not in unified format, which causes the failure of
> > dpkg-buildpackage. It is trivial to refresh it with quilt to the unified
> > format, but this introduces a divergence with upstream that I would prefer to
> > avoid, because it makes it difficult for others to verify that we did not
> > modify it. Can you support in the format ’3.0 (quilt)’ patches that are
> > accepted by default quilt installation?
> No. I really prefer that we uniformize the patches that we provide through
> debian/patches/ as it's an external interface as well (and for people reviewing
> patches, unified format is certainly the most common format).

If this patch is to be reviewed, then in my opinion it is better to keep it in
the original upstream format, because the first thing to check would be to make
sure that it is not altered nor obsolete. Nobody ever complained about patches
not in unified format in debian/patches before on this list. Lastly, let me
stress out again that this is an upstream patch. Reviewing it has as much
relevance as reviewing a couple of source files taken randomly in the original
source archive.

If using the unified format is to become a “must” in debian/patches, I would
prefer to have it discussed rather than imposed silently. I would understand
that your time to develop support for non-unified format is limited, but if the
reason is that you want to enforce one format, then as a maintainer I think
that I should have my word to say on how I manage my packages.

In the meantime, I will move the patches from debian/patches to debian/patch,
so that it does not block the switch to the format 3.0, which brings some
improvements that are much welcome in addition to the patch management, that I
think goes in the wrong direction.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: