On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its > > > meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in > > > the same NMU upload. > > > > "Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs is > > discouraged." > > > > Adding a patching system is surely changing the packaging style. > > Exactly, that is why 1.0 is less NMU-friendly than 3.0 (quilt)... you > can't do the right thing in a NMU, either you break the above rule or > you have to meld patches in the .diff.gz with no other information > than what you put in the changelog.
No, you don't have to "meld patches in the .diff.gz", you just do your changes, put an entry in debian/changelog and do dpkg-source -b. Nothing more. It's actually much more NMU-friendly than having to deal with a patch system. OTOH, 3.0 (quilt) is a patch system without being one, so it is a bit less pain. But it is not more NMU-friendly than plain 1.0. It is more NMU-friendly than 1.0 + patch system, though. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org