Joachim Wiedorn wrote: > I still use CDBS and I use "simple-patches" - but now without CDBS > support. My minor change is the file "patches/series" which let > dpkg-buildpackages know that there are patches. This seems very simple, > too. To get the old manner, I must only delete the series file and add > the CDBS line into debian/rules. But remaining in format 3.0. > Because I never used quilt, the syntax for quilt is a little bit stupid > for me. So also with the new format I don't use quilt. If I understand correctly what you're doing, you have a 3.0 (quilt) package with no quilt managed patches, and using a debian/rules based patch system on top of it. That perversion of the 3.0 format threatens to eliminate the main archive-wide gain of that format: That any 3.0 source package can be unpacked and the pre-patched source accessed without needing to manually follow a README.source file. I would prefer not to see such packages in the archive using source format 3.0. We've been down that road with 1.0, and it was not pretty. Above all other goals, my goal with putting the framework of source 3.0 in place was to allow the flexability that that mess never need to happen again. Please try to respect that; the benefits of getting this consistently right, are widespread, diffuse, but very real. I think you should be using a dedicated source format for your patch system, preferably one that preserves the pre-patched source on unpack invariant. Either the existing 3.0 (custom), or a new 3.0 subformat. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature