Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > I would definitely like to see some standardisation -- like changing > from quilt/dpatch to dpkg-source-v2 based patches, or having a standard > README of some sort to explain how the package is built, but I don't see > why it should be mandated.
Both quilt and dpatch have functionality that I don't believe dpkg-source-v2 patches have. dpatch supports doing things other than just patching files, and quilt isn't simply a patch collection but also adds extensive facilities for working with the patches and incorporating new patches. The latter is the primary appeal for some of us who use quilt whenever possible. I don't think that dpkg-source-v2 is really the answer to those problems, although at least for quilt (where there are no questions of non-patch actions) I'd be happy to see a system that converts a quilt patch setup to dpkg-source-v2 and back again so that the maintainer can use quilt and all of its extensive functionality for managing patches but the package builder doesn't need to have it available just to apply the patches. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]