On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: > > Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 09:18 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > >> Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: > >> > When a new upstream version is released, I have to check all patches if > >> > they were accepted by upstream or not. I have to check each patch if I > >> > can drop it. It would make packaging new releases easier if there were > >> > an optional Applied-Upstream field. Every patch that was applied > >> > upstream can be dropped. "no" or "not-yet" would indicate that the patch > >> > was not applied yet. If the patch was applied, it could contain the > >> > revision (like "r4681") or a link to the VCS commit. > >> > > >> > What do you think about my suggestion?
I'd also find this very useful. I mentioned it in http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~cjwatson/blosxom/debian/2010-03-25-thoughts-on-3.0-quilt-format.html before Raphaƫl pointed me at this thread. > So what you want is (overly verbose) > > Accepted-upstream: r1234 345836583468534854856834568395648 > Will-Be-Obsolete-in: 1.2 > > while you still only have upstreams 1.1 in Debian. > > I think the idea is good. The implementation seems to be in > doubt (where should it mention this, what should the field be called). > I would like to have both the information when it was commited and > when it will be released. The commit would be interesting because > often it differs from the debian patch to accomodate the newer > upstream developement. The release to know when the patch can be > removed. Yes, I agree we need both. (For instance, I forwarded a bunch of patches just before OpenSSH 5.4p1 was released, many of which will be in 5.5p1; I plan to upload 5.4p1 soon, but would also like to annotate which patches are in 5.5p1.) I don't know that we need to bother with two fields, though. There's precedent in DEP-3 for fields with internal structure; the format of Origin is not dissimilar to what we need here. How about something like the following? Index: dep3.mdwn =================================================================== --- dep3.mdwn (revision 142) +++ dep3.mdwn (working copy) @@ -178,6 +178,14 @@ This field can be used to record the date when the meta-information was last updated. It should use the ISO date format `YYYY-MM-DD`. + * `Applied-Upstream` (optional) + + This field can be used to document the fact that the patch has been + applied upstream. It may contain the upstream version expected to + contain this patch, or the URL or commit identifier of the upstream + commit (with commit identifiers prefixed with "commit:", as in the + `Origin` field), or both separated by a comma and a space. + Sample DEP-3 compliant headers ------------------------------ @@ -217,6 +225,15 @@ Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/265678 Author: Thiemo Seufer <t...@debian.org> +A patch submitted and applied upstream: + + Description: Fix widget frobnication speeds + Frobnicating widgets too quickly tended to cause explosions. + Forwarded: http://lists.example.com/2010/03/1234.html + Author: John Doe <johndoe-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org> + Applied-Upstream: 1.2, http://bzr.example.com/frobnicator/trunk/revision/123 + Last-Update: 2010-03-29 + Related links ------------- Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100329104624.ga17...@master.debian.org