On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: > Also, as a side comment, I would like to add that the “NMU workflow” often > advertised on this list completely ignores that a large number of packages are > stored in a VCS where all DDs have write acceess. Uploading a package with an > anonymous and monolithic patch puts an additional load on the maintainer's > work, > which contradicts the goal of a NMU, to help a busy maintainer.
Well, IMO, the VCS helper tool should have a tool to import an NMU. git-buildpackage has git-import-dsc for example. > The formats ‘2.0’ and ‘3.0 (variant)’ bring a lot of nice improvements, like > the use of multiple tarballs, different compression systems, and having the > debian directory in a single tarball, which removes the need of uuencoding > binary documents. I would welcome a variant that leaves the patch system in > the > hands of the maintainer. It would simplify our work by removing the need to > fight against the modifications introduced by runing the autotools, which > would > be simply ignored instead of being turned into an useless patch. And it would > also open a way to unify with the VCS-based formats. You're fighting the wrong target here, your clean rules should bring the package in a clean state again. However, we have debian/source/options now to pass default options to dpkg-source, we can certainly add more options to change the default set of ignored files (-i command line option currently) so that you don't end up with a supplementary patch in that case. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
