Heya, +1 as well on the desire of having mutt-kz in Debian. On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:29:28 +0100 Víctor M. Jáquez L. <vjaq...@igalia.com> wrote: > I used to maintain a fork of the mutt debian package[1], handling the > mutt-kz patches with quilt. Trying to resync this weekend the patches, > I found that the sources have diverted so much, that this strategy is > not practical anymore. > > So, I've setup a debian packaging for mutt-kz using git-buildpackage[2]. [...] > 2. https://gitorious.org/vjaquez-misc/mutt-kz
Thanks for your feedback and for your packaging work! So, for proper inclusion into Debian, this would require either shipping a huge patch as part of the mutt package (containing the diff mutt -> mutt-kz, refreshed periodically), or going for an entirely separate source package (as Víctor did). From the point of view of security maintenance, they are quite similar: in case a security issue is spotted in the common code base of mutt and mutt-kz, the fix will need to be applied twice and the resulting conflicts dealt with. The only minor advantage with the patch approach is that only package will need to be rebuilt. Has anyone verified with the security team if either approach would be acceptable for them? What's the opinion of the Mutt maintainer on the two approaches? TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
