Hi! On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 21:41:57 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > I don't know whether I'm going to accept this request. I'm rather enclined > > > to tag it wontfix. But I welcome supplementary feedback. > > > > Okay, another nail in the cofin of the quilt source format. It looks > > like a mistake to even thought about using it. > > I haven't taken any decision yet, but you're the first to complain about > this particular (mis-)feature so it can't be so annoying as you make it > sound like. > > Or maybe I should turn it into a warning and not die.
I personally don't see any harm in allowing it, even w/o a warning. ISTR using this at some point in the past with v1 sources and quilt patches when manually editing something (for whatever reason) and appending a new hunk for an existing patches file which belonged in the same logical patch. I don't think I've had the need for this at all lataly, given that I tend to refresh the patches to avoid fuzzies. But I can see how not divering from an upstream provided patch makes sense, although then that argument does not apply if one ends up concatenating them anyway. There's though still the possible argument that the patch is like that upstream already. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
