On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:57:02AM +0000, Ben Finney wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:26:12AM +0000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > So it's already the case that they have a certain number of places > > > to look, *including* the Debian BTS if the work is packaged for > > > Debian. I don't see that this proposal changes that. > > > > That's why the proposal is bad. It doesn't improve that, and it > > requires more work from the maintainer. Lose/lose situation. > > As I understand it, the proposal is to put *new* information (that > Debian source diverges, and exactly why) into an existing location > that is already a place we expect upstream to know about (the Debian > BTS) and that all Debian package maintainers are already expected to > know how to use.
But it's NOT ABOUT Debian package maintainers. > That seems like an improvement on putting that information in a *new* > place, that historically is not a place where all Debian package > maintainers can be expected to use, and expecting that upstream will > look there. More administrivia is never an improvement. See (yeah I know it's always about the glibc, but well … that's a very good example for the discussion) in the glibc we have debian/patches/$arch/$state-$subject.patches. For $state in {submitted,local,cvs}. submitted means its sent upstream, local means that it's not, cvs that it's a cherry-pick from upstream. Why on earth would we need to write that in _yet another place_ ? What Joey's proposal is: * put more burden on the maintainers that already report patch upstream ; * doesn't change a thing for the one who don't ; * has very few advantages for people that already did that work in their source package in a decent enough way (like the glibc does): the sole advantage I see is that it's predictable where to find the information. But when you want to check a package you have to `apt-get source` it anyways, and if debian/patches is sorted properly, then you'll see that in an obvious way before even launching your browser to look at the BTS. As a summary, I see a big-lose/no-win-no-lose/ridiculous-win situation, which sum up as quite-big-lose. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpmgCsNl00d2.pgp
Description: PGP signature