Re: Task list for a policy release
Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 10:13:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't like the last wording proposal in that it advocates strongly
>> against using quilt or dpatch, which as near as I can tell from other
>> Debian mailing list discussion and packaging teams are widely
>> considered best practices inside Debian even though they don't
>> immediately give you editable source.
> It does not advocate against quilt/dpatch: you can use quilt or dpatch
> and provide editable source. It is just a matter of having clean depend
> on 'patch' instead of 'unpatch'.
Even if you do that you can't just edit the source and build the package
and expect things to work properly. You put the package into a weird
state where all of the patches aren't represented in the patch system and,
for example, quilt pop -a won't work properly. (Not to mention that I
think this is a bad idea for other reasons; the patch applied state is not
the best starting point for working on a package that uses quilt.)
If the package is using quilt or dpatch, anyone modifying the package
really does need to use quilt or dpatch to manage the modifications.
>> #65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a
>> part of Debian distribution
>> I think this is a great idea and should be done. However, I don't
>> think it's currently being done with contrib and non-free packages, so
>> it's one of the standard Policy chicken-and-egg situations. I'm in
>> favor of applying this at the recommendation level (instead of the
>> should that's in the current wording).
> Another issue is that packages that are not in the Debian archive are
> not bound by policy.
Packages in contrib and non-free are.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: