Vincent Bernat wrote...
> 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.
That's for sure, and I doubt there are many people who consider 3.0
(quilt) a regression compared to other methods. Now while the thread
went a bit "What's not so good in 3.0 (quilt)", the initial intention
was a bit different: Are there technical reasons why a certain package
cannot be converted to source format 3.0 (not necessarily quilt)?
Personal preference or lack of acquaintance with the workflow is not
an excuse.
For me, besides some minor annoyances, there is just one thing with
3.0 (quilt), and I already forgot about the details: Baseline was, a
patch modified some auto* file (configure.ac, Makefile.am), and in
certain situations the patch was not applied yet or already unapplied
where it should have been. Probably I worked around it by adding some
extra statements in debian/rules.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature