Re: Proposal new source archive format
Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@debian.org> wrote:
> Of course, people doing NMUs and/or dealing with other arch's may not
> have access to the maintainer's CVS repository, so it might be useful
> to them. I would guess there are relatively few packages in the
> archive that haven't been NMU'd at some point.
I don't see why someone doing an NMU would need to have these patches
divided for them unless they are making some major changes to the code,
in which case it's probably not a good target for an NMU (unless the
package is effetively unmaintained, but then you are unlikely to find
the patches to be so neatly divided).
> Is there some problem with having this flexibility? I haven't seen
> anything that would make it appear mandatory that you take advantage
> of it---so where's the problem?
I don't have a problem with it if it is treated just like the upstream
patches. I do have a problem with adding baggage to the source package
format that should really be in something like CVS.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: