Re: Behaviour of dpkg-source with "3.0 (quilt)" and VCS and automatic patches
"Bernhard R. Link" <email@example.com> wrote:
>* Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> [110530 16:42]:
>> > That sounds a bit better, but it adds even more magic to
>> > I really miss some way to express: "In this account, do not use
>> > If things are not correct and need fixing, tell me what is wrong
>> > abort so I'll never miss it." (Actually I'd prefer it as default
>> > only have it enabled by some options, but a way to globally disable
>> > and turn them into hard errors would would be good enough[tm].)
>> I don't consider "applying/unapplying patches" as magic. :-)
>It depends where it happens. If it happens when unpackaging a source
>or otherwise getting a packages source directory then it is normal part
>of the preparation.
>If at some time a tool runs into something obviously wrong (trying to
>build a package from the wrong kind of directory), then fixing this
>condition falls under "automagic" in my eyes.
For some of us (me anyway), applying patches when unpacking a source package is just the wrong kind of automagic. I'd like to have patches applied when I say they should be applied.
This fits my mental model of being a distribution developer. It cleanly separates upstream code from packaging except when I choose to entangle them by applying the patches.
I know others view it differently. I'm not trying to say they are wrong, just that source format v3 is not a good fit with my mental model. This is why I generally avoid it in packages I maintain.