On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 04:27:41PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Le jeudi 29 mars 2007 16:18, Paul TBBle Hampson a écrit : >> And again, if I was going to keep the debian/ directory in an external >> version-control system, dpatch would be the way to go. >> Since I'm not going to, the Debian archive already has a system for >> storing such trivial patches, in the .diff.gz. >> Despite this, and because I'm obviously going to be overruled here again >> no matter what I say, here's a version using dpatch. At least dpatch use >> is _easy_ to revert later. > Paul, we'll talk about this later, when you'll have to update your package to > a new upstream release, when the diff.gz may not apply cleanly and you'll end > up seperating what's for upstream sources to what's for debian/ in the > diff.gz and finally patching new upstream with a new patch... That is > precisely the work I advise you to do in the first place: extracting a > patch.. Hmm. I don't actually blindly apply .diff.gz to new upstream versions. I usually just copy the debian/ directory across from my old one, inspect the .diff.gz for any changes outside the debian/ directory, and consider whether they are still needed, and what form they should take. When dpatch is in the mix, it's the same procedure, except I need to check each dpatch, rather than just running through the entire .diff.gz, and I also need to keep in mind any relevant changes made by earlier dpatches to the same files. And also not get confused by existing dpatches that aren't in 00list. If you're unlucky, you need to reroll a non-applying dpatch. If you're really unlucky, you then have to reroll subsequent dependant (and possibly non-applying) dpatches too. And although I haven't done it in a while, I don't recall dpatch-edit-patch being particularly fun to use on a non-applying patch... Either way, interdiff (via debdiff) then gives me a clue as to whether I've missed anything, and the results are much much easier to use without dpatch. Seriously, interdiff + dpatch means you're diffing diff files, the avoidance of which is the whole point of interdiff. Maybe some kind of dpatch-specialised interdiff wrapper... Hmm, I might look into that. I've also just realised that cowdancer integration would speed up dpatch-edit-patch quite nicely. In my experience, dpatch introduces more complication in the mix. And that complication is not worth it for five lines of changes between two Makefiles. > Sorry for giving you the impression that I overruled your will, but seriously > we'll discuss this later and I'm really convinced that > you may not have the same opinion. We've already established I've not the same opinion. I really don't expect that it'll change at this stage, either. I've presented all my positions on the topic, and the strongest arguement I've heard back was Charles' observation about debian/ directories becoming browseable at some point in the future. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpwVrDYqScCP.pgp
Description: PGP signature