Re: new source package format in dpkg-dev
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> In the first experiment, I inserted a line containing "Format: 2.0" on
Clearly the format 2.0 has been implemented as an academic exercise
because we're speaking of wig&pen since so long... but it's not the format
that I want to push for wide adoption.
> I looked at debian/patches/debian-changes-1058-1.diff and it basically reverts
> the changes from the debian/patches/Makefile patch (that was alone in format
> 1.0). I think that I do not feel like adopting this workflow because it adds a
> lot of complexity to the source package (how to explain the function of such a
> patch?), and because it means that when all quilt patches are on pushed on top,
> basically, everything is reverted. However, I use to generate new quilt patches
> with all the others already applied.
Well, the man page is clear: you have to call dpkg-source -b on a
directory with all the patches _applied_. That's the default state after
unpacking a 3.0 (quilt) source package. And when you do that, you don't
get this patch that reverts everything.
So if you want to try out the new source format, you have to adapt to
this. It might mean that svn-buildpackage needs change, I haven't thought
about it yet.
Maybe you can work around this for now by making sure that "debian/rules clean"
gives you a patched tree.
> Since the use of quilt is apparently troublesome for developpers doing
> QA work,
It's not troublesome at all. You get a sensible behaviour without using
quilt when doing: unpack, change, build. (Provided that you unpack a
source package using the new format already...)
> I would consider using a format such as 3.0 (quilt) if it would not
> perturbate my workflow too much (i.e. I am OK for a transition, but not for
> significant work overhead).
The only change that you have to do concerns quilt using packages and is
to apply patches the first time before calling dpkg-source -b. It's not
> Another incetive for using the 2.0 format
> is the handling of bzipped upstream tar archives, but again, I think
> that it would be more helpful if it were uncoupled from the management
> of patches by dpkg.
You don't have to use debian/patches/ if you don't want too. And what the
Format: 2.0 can do can also be done by the format "3.0 (quilt)".
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :