Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, you don't have to "meld patches in the .diff.gz", you just do your
> changes, put an entry in debian/changelog and do dpkg-source -b. Nothing
> more. It's actually much more NMU-friendly than having to deal with a
> patch system.
>
> OTOH, 3.0 (quilt) is a patch system without being one, so it is a bit
> less pain. But it is not more NMU-friendly than plain 1.0. It is more
> NMU-friendly than 1.0 + patch system, though.
>
> Mike
More friendly to the reciever of the NMU (maintainer) as the change
will be nicely sperated in debian/patches. At no cost to the NMUer if
he doesn't want to use quilt.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
