Re: why do people introduce stup^Wstrange changes to quilt 3.0 format
Jon Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It is true that 3.0 (quilt) does have a great downside, quilt, but it also
>> has a number of upsides. And working around quilt is simple:
>>
>> echo "single-debian-patch" >debian/source/options
>> echo "/.pc" >>.gitignore
>> echo "/debian/patches" >>.gitignore
>
> Thanks for the recipes for avoiding the quilt stuff; whilst still more work
> than "just use 1.0", but perhaps the advantages are indeed worth it. (Esp.
> in light of the talk re: xz compression.)
For me a huge advantage is that .hg and .git files are properly ignored
when building source packages. Not to mention multiple upstream
tarballs and support for adding binary files (think debian icon).
>> Except for nuking upstream debian/ dir which can mean a bit of lost work if
>> the upstream is sane (and can save some if they're not), the 3.0 format is
>> strictly better than 1.0.
>
> I had to go away and read up on the other things 3.0 brings to the table.
> Indeed they are nice-to-haves, which I am not benefiting from precisely because
> they are presently only available in Debian via 3.0 (quilt). This is a bit of
> a marketing fail for 3.0., in hindsight.
I think one large problem is that people don't know how to make 3.0
(quilt) format play nice with RCS systems and their own worflows. This
is something that has only evolved recently as more people have used 3.0
(quilt) format with their favourite RCS and workflow and the surrounding
tools have adapted.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: