Le Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:17:39AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > To avoid unexpected changes, we changed this a long time ago (dpkg 1.16.1) > when we introduced "dpkg-source --commit" to actually record the changes > in a new patch. > > Maybe the whole processe should be documented as: > 1/ dpkg-source -x > 2/ do the changes > 3/ dpkg-source --commit > 4/ dpkg-buildpackage > > > With the removal of the parenthetical, this looks good to me. Seconded. > > With the above clarification made, seconded, too.
Hello everybody, I think that the proposition is drifting in three parts that may be easier to resolve independantly. 1) How should a source package be after being unpacked. I think that there is quite some consensus on that point, or perhaps I should say there was, because with time, there are more and more software that are developed upstream and packaged downstream in Git, where it is more natural to expect one to commit the changes rather than dpkg doing so automatically. The next two points are a more intricated. 2) Is the 'patch' target in debian/rules optional or deprecated ? When using the source package format '3.0 (quilt)', it is clearly not recommended, so I agree that the Policy needs to be updated. On the other hand, when using the 1.0 format, it is much better to use it than to re-implement a parallel solution. The simplest change would be to keep marking it optional and recommended for the 1.0 source format, and recommend against it for the 3.0 (quilt) format. 3) Is the '3.0 (quilt)' format recommended ? While there may be a majority, winning over a minority, I do not think that there is consensus. Again, the '3.0 (quilt)' format was invented at a time where the landscape of source control systems was very fragmented, but now that Git is so prevalent, we should be careful to avoid blocking the development of better packaging workflows. My point of view as a package maintainer is that we should not go too far in decribing implementation details, and thus freeze the turnover of tools. I also really want the people who propose modifications to my packages to please please please use the latest version in the VCS, which we made writable to all DDs. I would be sad if the Policy would be blurring the message here. By the way, there are at least two more open issues related to README.source, #495233 and #543417. Maybe this is a good opportunity to solve them as well ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131104215827.gb2...@falafel.plessy.net
