On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > debian/patches/ as separate file, how do I know how to update/remove/etc > > > > There would be no debian/patches. > > That could be bad sometimes, or most of the time. Some people prefer to have > debian-specific patches (applied to the upstream source) separated and with > comments appended, which leads to more fine-grained control.
They're doing an NMU, not completely reauthoring the package. What do they care about the subtleties of some random other patch? > update it as well. They can send a patch against the toplevel soruce package > directory. Exactly. > > > them ? How is that different from learning darcs patch system which might > > > happend to be new for me. There is also git arch which also pretend to be > > > a patch system at heart. Thus the diversity is the same as in different > > > patch system / not necessary a bat thing though /. > > > > They can build and use the package just like normal. Somebody doesn't > > have to know how to use my VC in order to work on my package, which is > > different from the situation with the patch systems. > > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the upstrem > source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), They're doing an NMU. diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
