Quoting Matthias Urlichs (2024-06-17 13:05:17) > On 17.06.24 12:14, Ian Jackson wrote: > > [1] "precisely the patches in d/patches" turns out to be extremely > > complicated in the general case. Different maintainer tooling > > interprets d/patches differently. dpkg-source and gbp do not agree! > > There are maintainer workflows and git trees with partially > > incompatible notions! > > That's an important point IMHO. > > Say I need to apply a security patch to some package's git tree on > Salsa. How can I be sure to even create the same source tree as the > previous uploader? I don't know which tool the maintainer used, nor the > options supplied to it, so I can't. > > Thus I need to ignore the maintainer's git tree in favor of "apt-get > source", manually apply the fix, upload that to the archive, then apply > the (hopefully) exact same patch to the actual git sources. Sorry but > WTF? [1]
It seems you are looking at this backwards: You don't "need to" anything with git or salsa. What you "need to" do, if you want to contribute to a Debian package, is follow whatever is the maintenance style for that package. Your WTF seems to be from a false assumption that git is central to Debian package maintenance. It isn't. It is popular, but not central, nor standardized. The topic of this GR is not streamlining Debian use of git, but allowing a simpler path from existing messy git to acceptance into Debian. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
