On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:08:00AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>> > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from > > > > >>> > the upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless > > > > >>> > one knows where to find > > > > >>> > > > > >>> First, what is a "Debian-specific patch?" Isn't everything in > > > > >>> diff.gz that? > > > > >> > > > > >> Right, but you have parts which touch upstream files > > > > >> (debian/patches/*), and parts which does not (debian/!patches). I > > > > >> prefer them to be clearly separated when the whole debian source > > > > >> package is unpacked. > > > > > > > > > > Not only that. Many packages make changes to upstream files that are > > > > > Debian-specific (e.g. for using infrastructure or libraries that > > > > > don't exist outside), but also changes to upstream files that > > > > > will/should be temporary because upstream will apply the same patch, > > > > > has been asked to, or the patch has been taken from their development > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > Iff we use a branch to each change we can have same behaviour using a > > > > SCM but anyone that would want to change or contrib changes will need > > > > to learn how we deal with this all. > > > > > > This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' users, > > > which are not supposed to be aware of your SCM, where your repo is, > > please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks.
I did. Using an SCM and shipping a monolithic diff.gz makes it *easier* for the 'apt-get source' user to work with the package, because there isn't a randomly-chosen "debian patch manager" in the way to confuse and confound. > > source and why they have been applied." > > > > Which is it? Clearly identified patches, or "not supposed to be aware"? > > Obviously 'SCM' is what you missed above, which led you to such a confusion. > Yes, people might be able to apt-get source and have patches which are to be > (un)applied to the upstream source clearly identified without having to > bother with any SCM to do the _patching_ work. (SCM == VCS) They don't have to know anything about the SCM to manipulate a monolithic diff.gz package. This is in contrast to a "patch-managed" package, where you *MUST* learn the patch management system to make a minimal, useful NMU patch. > > > I.e. if you have patches, do them debian way (using a debian patch > > > system) > > > > Please identify "the debian way", so I may start using it. > > > > Oh wait. There isn't any single Debian way. Never has been, almost > > certainly never will be. > > There is no signle SCM you can do packaging either. No, there isn't, but the difference is that the SCM doesn't get in your way. - Matt
