"Bernhard R. Link" <brl...@debia.org> wrote: >* Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> [110530 16:42]: >> > That sounds a bit better, but it adds even more magic to >dpkg-source. >> > I really miss some way to express: "In this account, do not use >magic. >> > If things are not correct and need fixing, tell me what is wrong >and >> > abort so I'll never miss it." (Actually I'd prefer it as default >and >> > only have it enabled by some options, but a way to globally disable >> > and turn them into hard errors would would be good enough[tm].) >> >> I don't consider "applying/unapplying patches" as magic. :-) > >It depends where it happens. If it happens when unpackaging a source >or otherwise getting a packages source directory then it is normal part >of the preparation. > >If at some time a tool runs into something obviously wrong (trying to >build a package from the wrong kind of directory), then fixing this >condition falls under "automagic" in my eyes.
For some of us (me anyway), applying patches when unpacking a source package is just the wrong kind of automagic. I'd like to have patches applied when I say they should be applied. This fits my mental model of being a distribution developer. It cleanly separates upstream code from packaging except when I choose to entangle them by applying the patches. I know others view it differently. I'm not trying to say they are wrong, just that source format v3 is not a good fit with my mental model. This is why I generally avoid it in packages I maintain. Scott K
