Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > 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.
No, it doesn't; I can cope with other things, or fall back to the
alternate "apt source package-name" workflow. A substantial majority of
packages use git, though.
> Moreover, it assumes that
> the patch management system is in an "applied" state for the Debian
> branch.
Yes, it assumes that the output of "debcheckout" supports an immediate
"debuild -b". That seems like a safe assumption for the vast majority
of packages I've run into. For others, it often still works as long as
your patch doesn't conflict with some other patch (which would cause
significant pain even if known in advance). And not having patches
already applied makes editing painful.
> 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"?
Again, I expect "debuild -b" to work on the result of "debcheckout",
which tends to work.
> 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?
Grumble and fall back to "apt source".
> Your second method assumes that existing patches are already applied
> (which is the case with 3.0 (quilt)).
Or that the unapplied patches don't conflict, but yes.
> 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.
In some ways (and again, I do use it), but it seems like an improvement
built around a non-VCS patches-and-tarballs world, not a VCS world.
> Making everybody uses the same git workflow (like gbp pq)
> would be better IMO, but I understand many will object.
Not necessarily the same workflow, but the same repository layout. And
yes, until a single repository layout exists that satisfies all
requirements, people will object vehemently.
Currently working on some improvements in that direction, to separate
repository format from workflow.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: