Re: RFS: scrot (updated package)
On Monday 04 August 2008 02:13:30 Ben Finney wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
--cut--
> 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 guessing here -- Have you ever thought that this could be an advice given
by a sponsor who prefers the things the way he asked and at the end he is
responsible to fix any potential breakages subsequently found ? Ever thought
he wants his life easier? So get back safely to the ground and forget about
any dogmas, except the ones found in debian policy.
> 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.
That flies directly in the face of DevRef 6.2.1 Best Packaging Practices.
Should I be in dount or I'm better not ;-)
> 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.
Your alternative as currently being performed leads to deeply hidden and
silent changes to the upstream code and is proven as a very bad practice by
some recent security disasters. Note that 3.0 (git) will improve the
readability and changeset identification (since it brings more information
with the surce package itself, but still one should fight the history) but it
is not allowed/ready yet. Note, that I'm not against VCS, I'm against their
abusage and the distribution of unreadable and sometimes dangerous bits.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: