Re: New Packager question again: can you point me to a not flawed package?
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:19:02 -0500, Paul Johnson <pauljohn32@gmail.com>
said:
> > You may recall I was the one who asked yesterday "Why do you encourage
> > packagers to open the source code and fool around?" I got answers
> > which indicate that the source code generally should not be changed
> > directly, and all changes should either be in patches that are stored
> > in the debian/patches directory or in the other configuration files
> > like "rules". I say "Yes, I agree" I am used to that from RPM
> > building. I think you should force people to prove they can build
> > packages by applying patches to an original, untouched tarball or
> > putting details in a debian directory.
>
> Err, I don't think even half of my packages follow those
> guidelines. I fall in the group of people who use a modern SCM for
> development, and not a stacked patch set. I am not going to presume by
> telling you that either approach is inferior, though I certain have an
> opinion.
There should be ways to use both, since you depreciate your diff.gz and it
turns to be a useless scratch of bits. Then, again why have diff.gz at all
when it is not credible enough ?
> I do have a emacs package you can look at for details, if you
> wish: http://git.debian.org/git/users/srivasta/debian/vm.git
Using a modern SCM is wonderful, but please, get back to the ground, and think
of the possible use cases with what Debian has officially released, and if
that is what warns a certain level of unification. There are users (let's say
within restricted areas) who can't access random DD repos at will, but rely
solely on diff.gz supplied by released source CD/DVD media. Please note that
development history of changes is not of any help here, but what exactly has
been applied (as logically separated changes) to a particular upstream
version being released.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: