On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think: >> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_problem_with_tools/ >> is a big one that deserves attention. It's been a low-level grumble for >> quite some time in various places, but it's getting louder. It's a >> difficult problem in that it's a balance between tools that make DDs more >> productive and the ease of treating Debian packages in a uniform manner. > I completely agree that this topic deservers attention and thus I > would like to start a discussion here. IMHO there is a need for putting > patches against upstream source into a defeult place. The rationale > behind this is that if you are using VCS for your packaging to enable > effective group maintainance it makes no sense to store a complete > tarball but just the patches. For instance in the Debian-Med project > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-med/trunk/packages/ > we agreed to store only the debian directory into SVN and have a > get-orig-source target in the debian/rules file. To store the patches > in the debian directory and apply them later dpatch and quilt are > widely used tools and I don't know a better solution. > What would you suggest to enhance the situation? - Use a VCS with support for intelligent merging (svn and CVS don't have this) - Store all of the source, upstream and Debian, in the same VCS (better if upstream uses the same, but if it has to be a clone of upstream then so be it) - Create feature branches for each of your independent patches that you want to be able to keep separate over the course of package maintenance. As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
