Hi there! On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:39:35 +0200, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > From reading the DEP-3, it mentions the use of the Commit: identifier, > but doesn't give any examples of how this would be done. Would > something like this be acceptable instead? > > Origin: upstream, Commit:8f00911a21 This is how I interpreted DEP-3 in the Bacula package, with the difference of using a lowercase "commit" (`git format-patch` outputs like this) and the full commit ID (if I should less, I would use 7 digits given that `git describe` outputs like this): <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/upstream-1623_debian-591293___file_jpfid_idx.patch;h=3434554f7e56822d5c0701cdf40ae23ff3233ed9;hb=97abfff23888b2a58f1a68f330b53b176ec39b48> <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/upstream___Add-missing-bwild-bregex-man8-pages.patch;h=4b7b9abebfc845293f987863e050f6de936520ff;hb=97abfff23888b2a58f1a68f330b53b176ec39b48> The problem I found is when the patch includes two different upstream commits, see: <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/fix-binutils-gold-linking.patch;h=15bfc2b25241d316bc588048b6abe599f32fdddd;hb=HEAD> > I assume as long as there is clear documentation in where to find the > canonical upstream repository (perhaps in debian/README.source or > debian/copyright) this would be considered acceptable? At least for Bacula it is clear where the canonical upstream repository is. And it should be clear also for those project using Git where the Debian package is directly pulling from upstream (so everything is like upstream except for the 'debian' branch). Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpeuybHcKJWV.pgp
Description: PGP signature