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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"):
> 2 janvier 2017 01:45 -0800, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> :
> > Personally, when I want to patch a random package, I run "debcheckout
> > package-name", make changes, commit them, format-patch, [...]

Really, I can't let this pass without plugging dgit :-).

For working on packages that aren't your own, you should use dgit
instead of debcheckout.  If you do then:

> Your debcheckout assumes that the VCS is git.

With dgit, the VCS you get is always git.

>  Moreover, it assumes that the patch management system is in an
> "applied" state for the Debian branch.

With dgit, the tree you get is always patches-applied.

>   And if you want to test your change, you may be in additional
> pain.

With dgit, you can use `dpkg-buildpackage -uc -b' directly in the
working tree.  (You can use git clean and git reset if
debian/rules dirties the tree.)

>  Is the package using plain quilt? Is it using some esoteric patch
> management system like "git-dpm"?

With dgit, you can ignore all of that.

>  Does the source from debcheckout includes the upstream branch

With dgit, you always get the upstream branch.

> 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.

With dgit, you can even NMU with linear git commits on top of the
existing package, whilch will be turned into nice patches which the
gbp pq (or git-dpm or quilt) user will be happy with.

The only downside is that if the maintainer didn't use dgit, you don't
get the maintainer's history.  But if debcheckout would have given you
a git tree, dgit will set up a `vcs-git' remote which you can `git
fetch', if you want to go history-diving.

See dgit-user(7) and dgit-nmu-simple(7):



Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: