Re: New source package formats now available
Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
>>> I understand that you do not want to throw away your work on this
>>> patch management system, but by making it optional, I think that you
>>> will actually increase your chances of success…
>> I think that's very wise.
> It is optional already. Just don't make any direct changes to upstream
> files. What else do you need?
Until we have 3.0 (git), I think I'm going to stick with direct source
modifications to the upstream source and hence with version 1.0. I've
considered using TopGit to generate a real quilt patch set, but it's kind
of complicated and I'm not convinced that the work required to generate
the exported patch tree even with TopGit is really worth it. Given that,
for packages currently maintained in Git, 3.0 (quilt) is extra complexity
over 1.0 that doesn't seem to be buying me very much.
It would be nice, however, to have the other features of the 3.0 format
(including binaries in the debian directory, not shipping the debian
directory as a patch, using multiple upstream tarballs, using
bzip2-compressed upstream tarballs) without having the quilt-like patch
system in play.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>