Re: git-dpm vs gbp-pq: new upstream and patch refresh (long)
On 05/09/14 13:10, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 04/09/14 20:40, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> The file is patched, but now I have an d/p/0005- file instead of a modified
>> 0003- patch file. Sigh.
>
> The systemd maintainers [...]
It might also be worth noting that the systemd maintainers switched from
git-dpm to gbp-pq recently (between 204 and 208, I think), so they
obviously didn't think git-dpm was the better option.
The systemd package is an interesting stress-test for patch systems,
because:
* upstream don't do formal micro releases (there is no v208.1 and
probably never will be) but they do cherry-pick a lot of bugfixes to
a stable-branch (e.g. v208-stable), so the Debian maintainers apply
patches from the upstream v208-stable branch in bulk;
* the Debian maintainers also apply a significant number of local
patches to preserve historical functionality of Debian's udev and
sysvinit, some of which are never going to go upstream
so managing its patch-set is non-trivial. This might mean that the right
decision for systemd is not the same as the right decision as for a
package that will hopefully only have a couple of Debian patches; I
don't know.
S
Reply to: