Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMHO there is a need for putting patches against upstream source > into a defeult place.
Agreed. This place is provided by a VCS, especially one with good merging algorithms. We are blessed with an ever-improving wealth of such VCS software, with superlative merging support. in recent times. That way, the "patches against upstream source" are revisions in your debian packaging branch for the source. > 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. I see no rationale for this assertion. Why does it "make no sense" to keep the source tree in VCS to track changes to it? > 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. Subversion is not a VCS with good merging support. That should be fixed first before declaring it to "make no sense" to track source changes in a VCS. NB: IANADD. -- \ "If you go flying back through time and you see somebody else | `\ flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye | _o__) contact." -- Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
