Re: Status of new source formats project
Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Le Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:51:26AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
> > Perhaps you could talk to upstream about switching to either using
> > unified diffs for updates, tarballs for every release or a git/etc
> > repository?
> For sure, Debian can suggest them git, Ubuntu can suggest them bzr,
> Fedora can suggest them cvs, and Opensuze can suggest them svn.
Fine. Whichever one of those they choose, it can consume and produce
> And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them apart
> that unified diff is the preferred format of some Debian developers,
That's quite a misrepresentation; it's far wider than just “some Debian
developers” who prefer that format.
> and that we like that others use the formats that we prefer.
The point, rather, seems to be that unified-diff format is the de facto
standard format for exchanging patch information.
> I think that is a too weak argument, so unless there is a real flaw in
> the format used upstream, I will not bother them for a change.
The flaw is that patch information in any format other than unified-diff
format is nowhere near as portable.
> Much saner in my opinion is to have a toolchain that is liberal in
> what it accepts. (Hence the proposition to accept upstream ‘zip’
This is in opposition to the ideal of having standard  formats for
data interchange, and choosing them on the basis of what is already
widely produced and accepted.
 “standard” in this usage necessarily including “freely-implemented”,
which doesn't disqualify the other options being discussed, but I
put this footnote in the hope of forestalling useless discussions
about proprietary formats.
\ “I moved into an all-electric house. I forgot and left the |
`\ porch light on all day. When I got home the front door wouldn't |
_o__) open.” —Steven Wright |