[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: scrot (updated package)

George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:

> On Sunday 03 August 2008 02:43:24 Ben Finney wrote:
> > Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> writes:
> > > So, Please put those cahnges in a series of patches in
> > > debian/patches and build depend on quilt.
> >
> > Or use some other method (e.g. a VCS and the corresponding command
> > foovcs-buildpackage) to track differences from upstream and generate
> > the changes for the Debian package.
> This do not exclude the usage of debian/patches. Make sure to
> understand that.

Yes. Did you notice the "or" that introduced the paragraph? That means
it's an alternative to Anibal's statement, not exclusive with it.

> > The "quilt" format is favoured by many, but is certainly not
> > mandatory nor even "best practice".
> Using quilt to clearly separate patches does not exclude nor
> contradicts with the usage of a $VCS. Thus I don't see what are you
> trying to correct in Anabal's statements.

Advice given here needs to be carefully examined for dogma, and a
clear line needs to be maintained between "you should do this" and
"this is one way to do it".

I'm correcting the false implication that "put the changes in a series
of patches in debian/patches and build depend on quilt" is somehow
mandatory, or even that it's recommended practice.

In fact, anything that generates the Debian source format is fine, and
there are perfectly valid ways that don't involve the use of "a series
of patches in debian/patches and build depend on quilt". That's *one*
way, but I disagree that it should be recommended without alternatives
as Anibal's message did.

 \       “Free thought is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition |
  `\                                       for democracy.” —Carl Sagan |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: