On 07/08/15 11:30, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
>> But, is that a good thing? quilt itself is a PITA to use IMHO
>
> a lot of people seems to appreciate quilt (I know that 3.0 (quilt)
> doesnt necessarily reflect in using quilt). It's not perfect but I
> find it usable and in line with the style of other packaging tools.
I agree with Sandro about repository contents while disagreeing about
the quilt(1) command-line tool, which is perhaps an interesting perspective.
I avoid quilt(1) wherever possible, and whenever I use it to resolve
some weird patch-queue corner case, I have to look up how it works.
However, the patch-queue format, and patches-unapplied git repository
contents, make a lot of sense to me: the git history contains exactly
the parts that don't get rebased.
To avoid quilt(1), I use "gbp pq" instead. What I commit to git as a
result interoperates with quilt(1), in the sense that someone like
Sandro could clone one of my repositories, manipulate the patch queue
with quilt(1), and not have to know or care that I used gbp pq; and I
could work with one of Sandro's repositories with gbp pq, without having
to deal with quilt. That seems like a nice property to have.
(Example repositories: dbus, ioquake3)
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55c495bb.4010...@debian.org
