On Wednesday 27 August 2008 16:47:24 Phillip Susi wrote: > Emmet Hikory wrote: > > I am not advocating the storage of patches in the diff.gz, as I > > believe that this makes the package awkward to extend when Ubuntu > > seeks to add patches: I'd much prefer that each package have a patch > > system. I understand that for work in Debian, using a VCS in place of > > a patch system can be easier, but it's certainly not easier for > > derivatives, especially for patches that do not belong back in Debian. > > Agreed. > > > Rather I am arguing against the introduction of a patch system in > > Ubuntu for packages that maintain patches in the diff.gz in Debian > > except in the rare case where there is such a vast separation in the > > Ubuntu and Debian packaging that it becomes easier to apply Debian > > patches by reviewing debdiffs between Debian packages rather than > > either using the merge tools or rebasing packaging off the Debian > > package each time. > > > > 1: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/intrepid-changes/2008-August/005755.htm > >l > > Sounds like we are in agreement in principal; we just disagree exactly > where to draw the line. I'd rather get the pain of adding the patch > system over sooner so it doesn't grow worse when I have to do it later. > Also if debian is using a VCS then it becomes fairly easy to pull the > patches from their VCS and merge them into our VCS or patch system, > rather than trying to do a hand merge between the two .diff.gz files.
Right, but this still leads to the difficult scenario I mentioned yesterday where the Debian maintainer incorporates the patch, MoM completely fails to notice it, and then the best thing that can happen is the package fails to build. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
