[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

 ❦  2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> :

>> > I don't want the source format to care about details like those.
>> > If people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their
>> > packages, they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care
>> > about that.  The source format should not attempt to specify or
>> > interact in any way with patching or version control.
>> For me, this is a great improvement over the previous format with
>> several different patching systems (quilt, dpatch, nothing,
>> custom). Now, most packages are using quilt, one less thing to
>> understand.
>> IMO, we still have too much diversity in how we handle version control
>> for packages.
> "Using" quilt by stuffing the former contents of .diff.gz into
> debian/patches/debian-changes doesn't seem like an improvement; it just
> adds complexity, and opens the possibility of someone adding other
> changes via quilt, rather than as a patch suitable for direct "git
> am".

This is still far less possibilities than what what was previously
allowed by the previous format. Since this new format, many packages now
have distinct patches. There is also DEP-3 that should help.

> Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout
> package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, and mail that to
> the BTS.  If the package doesn't have an appropriate Vcs field for
> debcheckout to read, I instead run "apt source package-name",
> "cp package-name-version{,.orig}", edit,
> "diff -Naur package-name-version{.orig,}", and then submit the
> result.  Either way, if someone wants to manage their patches in quilt
> or similar, they can take the resulting patch and insert it into
> debian/patches/ easily enough.

Your debcheckout assumes that the VCS is git. Moreover, it assumes that
the patch management system is in an "applied" state for the Debian
branch. And if you want to test your change, you may be in additional
pain. Is the package using plain quilt? Is it using some esoteric patch
management system like "git-dpm"?  Does the source from debcheckout
includes the upstream branch or do you have to grab the tarball from
somewhere else? In this case, how do you make your patch?

Your second method assumes that existing patches are already applied
(which is the case with 3.0 (quilt)).

My point is just that we have too many ways to represent a source
package and its modifications. 3.0 (quilt) is definitely an
improvement. Making everybody uses the same git workflow (like gbp pq)
would be better IMO, but I understand many will object.
Use statement labels that mean something.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: