On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:53:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is > >> offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and > >> not benefitting from the other improvements. However the > >> single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and > >> perhaps just needs wider awareness. > > > I wonder, what if we changed the meaning of no debian/source/format to > > 3.0 (quilt) + single-debian-patch? Would anything break? > > Yes: packages that are already using quilt with debian/patches and the 1.0 > source format (perhaps because they don't want patches applied > automatically on unpack but instead want control of that in debian/rules > for one reason or another) would not play well with that change, since > both the existing quilt system and the 3.0 (quilt) source format want to > control and interpret debian/patches.
I checked: it looks like 1050 (!) source packages use the 1.0 format _and_ have a debian/patches directory. Suffering both 1.0 and quilt... the worst of both worlds. Scary! -- Gnome 3, Windows 8, Slashdot Beta, now Firefox Ribbon^WAustralis. WTF is going on with replacing usable interfaces with tabletized ones? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715221941.ga20...@angband.pl
