Re: maint-guide updates (take 3)
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> <p>When you want to manage Debian packaging activities under a VCS, you
> typically create one branch (e.g. <tt>upstream</tt>) tracking the
> upstream source and another branch (e.g. <tt>master</tt> for the Git
Does "<tt>master</tt> for the Git archive" mean "typically
<tt>master</tt> if the VCS you're using is Git"? If so I would
recommend "(e.g. typically <tt>master</tt> for Git)".
> archive) tracking the Debian package. For the branch like
> <tt>master</tt>, you usually want to have unpatched upstream source with
> your <file>debian/*</file> files for the Debian packaging to ease
> merging of the new upstream source.
If "for the branch like <tt>master</tt>" means "for the one we
suggested parenthetically might be referred to as <tt>master</tt>" I
would suggest "for the latter".
> <p>After building a package, the source is normally left patched. You
Technically a "dangling" participle; since we're already using
second person I'd recommend "After you build a package [...]".
> need to unpatch it manually by running "<tt>quilt pop -a</tt>" before
> committing to the <tt>master</tt> branch. You can automate this unpatch
Can you use "unpatch" as a noun? It seems a plausible coinage, but
it isn't entirely idiomatic. If in doubt you could just drop the
word - "you can automate this by [...]"
> by adding the optional <file>debian/source/local-options</file> file
> containing "<tt>unapply-patches</tt>". This file is not included in the
> generated source package and changes the local build behavior only.
> This file may contain "<tt>abort-on-upstream-changes</tt>", too
> (see <manref name="dpkg-source" section="1">).
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package