Re: Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
> On 9/12/19 8:57 AM, Ansgar wrote:
>> I don't see much value in this requirement (besides additional work).
>> One should look at the repository anyway whan planning to do changes
>> (to match the existing style used); one would naturally see how files
>> are organized. We already had tons of packages shipping a
>> README.source stating "this packages uses quilt, ..." before which I
>> also didn't find very valuable; this seems pretty similar.
>
> Working with packages downstream it's nice to have that
> documented. E.g., needing to patch something for a weird site
> requirement, or backport a fix that isn't a big deal for anyone else
> (so likely wouldn't qualify for a stable update), etc. Not everyone
> who wants to modify a package is familiar with the multitude of ways
> of maintaining packages.
As long as you only need to touch the more trivial parts of the package
and not the upstream source. There are many more ways to organize
upstream sources; more conventions (for different programming
languages); more workflows; code style conventions; ...
Most of the variance in Debian packaging is much less than what one
would encounter outside of the packaging-specific bits.
Ansgar
Reply to: