Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:48:47 +0000, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> On Thu Feb 07 22:42, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> In the scenario Manoj presents above, the modifications applied to >>> upstream are easily available all in one place: the foo.diff.gz. >> But all as one patch, not as your nice separated list of commits >> and/or branches. > True. We now have to evaluate the benefits of providing sources > that the binary packages are built from with no fuss (dpkg -x); which > can then be inspected and patched. Well, this whole thread was really about how to have our cake and eat it too, so I don't think we should assume that we can't provide the sources with no muss and not *also* use a patch system. That's what many of us were trying to work towards with the discussion of how quilt would fit into wig&pen. > What is the use case this effort is designed to address? I > have not actually heard NMU/porters express a need for converting > monolithic patches to patch series. Have I missed the need statements? It's to let those of us who think of a patch as a useful unit of development instead of a branch continue to develop Debian packages using the methodology that we feel makes us the most productive without causing extra problems for the security team and NMUs. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
