Re: Behaviour of dpkg-source with "3.0 (quilt)" and VCS and automatic patches
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, 29 May 2011, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> The file should end with .patch
>> (debian/patches/debian-changes-<ver>.patch) so that your favorite text
>> editor uses the correct highlighting.
> At the time I wrote it, it was on purpose that I did not use any
> extension. It limited the possibilities of interaction if another patch
> system was in use while still using "3.0 (quilt)".
> In the mean time, I abandoned the idea of auto-migrating source packages
> so it's probably no longer very important. Thus I could do that.
> Are there objections to this change?
I have a very minor objection: I think it's aethetic clutter to add
unnecessary file extensions (we're not DOS or Windows), and any decent
editor should figure out that it's a patch from either the file format or
the fact that it's in a debian/patches directory. But I don't feel
strongly enough about it to do anything other than just write this
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>