Re: New source package formats now available
* Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
> > me).
> Yay for reuploading the full tarball for each revision! I'd rather you
> keep using 1.0 instead of doing this...
But 1.0 won't give me orig.tar.bz2 support. And your plan is to kill
off 1.0 and implicit convert it to 3.0 (quilt) so "keep using 1.0" would
still mean having to change stuff in the package.
> The automatic patch now features DEP-3 headers by default. The NMUer can
> rename it and edit the headers easily. If he wants to create one patch
> per feature, he can simply rebuild the source package after having applied
> each patch.
Have you tried rebuilding the source package after having applied a
patch in wesnoth? Or OpenOffice.org? Or nexuiz-data? Or fillets-ng-data?
> For each patch:
> - apply patch
> - dpkg-buildpackage -S
> - rename debian/patches/debian-changes-<ver> into something else
> and edit its headers
> - fix debian/patches/series
> Note: this works only if quilt is not installed (or if you ensure
> dpkg-source is called with --without-quilt which you currently can't pass
> via dpkg-buildpackage).
Ah yes, again different workflows required - so we actually do need a
README.Source to warn people to not having quilt installed when working
with 3.0 (quilt) format? This sounds a bit backwards and strange, to be
> It's new, it's just that we haven't developed the toolset around it. I
> always expected that people would start developing new tools à la
> devscripts to make it easier for some specific scenario.
Expecting others to jump the wagon isn't something you should depend
on, you are well adviced to be ready to do the work yourself in case
your expectations are over the top. :)
> Well, everything has a learning curve. It's normal to have to learn once.
> The point of README.source was to document stuff that not all DD are
> supposed to know. Knowledge of the new source format will be common
> in the near future.
Given that there seems to be different workflows needed and required
depending on what packages one has installed I still see the need for
that, to be honest ...
> Well, people familiar with quilt have it already installed. And most
> packages are built out of VCS with patches un-applied so it doesn't even
> matter in most cases.
That's unfortunately still evading the problem at hand. dpkg-source
isn't giving well-defined results, it acts differently with different
stuff installed. :/
> I have nothing against adding quilt to dependencies of dpkg-dev but I can
> tell that I will get the same number of grumbles from other people equally
> unhappy with that choice.
Wouldn't it be possible to make dpkg able to create the .pc directory
with the stuff quilt needs to know? That would produce a well-defined
result and not different results on different systems.