On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its > > meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in > > the same NMU upload. > > "Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs is > discouraged." > > Adding a patching system is surely changing the packaging style.
Exactly, that is why 1.0 is less NMU-friendly than 3.0 (quilt)... you can't do the right thing in a NMU, either you break the above rule or you have to meld patches in the .diff.gz with no other information than what you put in the changelog. > My point is : dpkg-source -x should be idempotent, whatever other > packages are installed when you do it. The fact that you can't > dpkg-source -x, and *then* install quilt to manage the patches is a > nuisance. It's a minor one, yes. But it should happen only once... the next time will be still be installed. And since quilt is not needed during a simple build, I don't see the need to add it the dependencies of dpkg-dev. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
