On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:09:50PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > On 2018-02-12 11:22 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > Huh. I hadn't thought of that option, but it seems peculiar and > > excessively baroque (it basically splits the patch into a remove and an > > add, making it less obviously identical to the one submitted upstream > > and harder to keep track of in git). Is there a strong reason to take > > that approach? > > I'd have done the same as Simon. The main advantage is that it makes > the tarball free software, which we generally don't get any leeway > about
The same advantage is gained by simply patching the replacement code into the regenerated tarball in a single step, rather than removing in one step and adding in another. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
