On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:56:45AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote: > * Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> [2011-11-29 03:33]: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of > > > them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them. > > > > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches that > > > are > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis. > > > > > > - Patches that don't unapply cleanly after build can be dealt with via > > > 'rm -rf' with a custom patch system, but must be made to unapply cleanly > > > with v3 (quilt). > > > > All of these can be dealt with by rewriting the patch so that it is > > acceptable to upstream and applied and released by them. > > Care to explain how conditional per-target-distribution patches should > be bushed upstream? Think of patches requried for debian/sid, > debian/squeeze-backports, ubuntu/Oneric Ocelot and ubuntu/Lucid Lynx > when it comes to build dependencies.
Those belong in a version control system, not in a single source package, which is only targetted at a single distribution. Such things can be done very easily on per-distribution branches, e.g.: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=buildd-tools/schroot.git;a=heads Such changes would typically only affect the Debian packaging and not require upstreaming, but even if they did per-distribution branches would still be the way to go. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111129090431.gm17...@codelibre.net
