Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 08:42 +0100 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: > Hi, > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > When a new upstream version is released, I have to check all patches if > > they were accepted by upstream or not. I have to check each patch if I > > can drop it. It would make packaging new releases easier if there were > > an optional Applied-Upstream field. Every patch that was applied > > upstream can be dropped. "no" or "not-yet" would indicate that the patch > > was not applied yet. If the patch was applied, it could contain the > > revision (like "r4681") or a link to the VCS commit. > > > > What do you think about my suggestion? > > I suppose that you would want to add the field as soon as the patch is > committed upstream so that you can more easily identify patches to remove > when the next upstream version is out? Yes, indeed. > Do you expect to automate this operation? Adding the field would be manual, but removing the patches can do a simple script, when the next upstream release is out. > I'm not sure we need a new field for this purpose, you could add a comment > in the description field or even change the Forwarded: URL to point to the > upstream VCS to make it clearer that it got merged. Automating the removal would be hard then. > BTW, speaking of DEP-3, someone mentioned that it doesn't tell the > encoding to use. Does anyone oppose to adding a note saying that it > should aim at being ASCII-only and if that's not possible then UTF-8 > should be used? I think that the DEP-3 header should be in UTF-8 (ASCII would be the subset). -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil