Re: Converting to dgit
Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
> The thing that's delivered to users in 99% of the cases is the binary
> package. In the (comparatively) rare cases where the user is retrieving
> the source, I am not convinced that most of these users truly prefer a
> Debian-specific source package with patches in debian/patches over a
> standard Git repository with patches as commits.
Speaking as a Debian user who frequently has to apply local patches or
produce local versions of Debian packages for my job (usually weird
backports or bizarre local requirements), I cannot express to you how much
I prefer a Debian source package with patches in debian/patches over a Git
repository with patches as commits.
It is not even remotely close. The externalized patches are an order of
magnitude easier for me to work with.
I have worked with both in the past, and when I got the standard Git
repository with patches as commits, it *always* became a maintenance
nightmare when the Debian package updated. My local changes then became a
blizzard of merge conflicts and life was horrible.
I wouldn't say that it is *easy* to update a package with separate patches
to a new Debian package release, but it's certainly way *easier*.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>