On Wednesday 27 August 2008 16:47:24 Phillip Susi wrote:
> Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > I am not advocating the storage of patches in the diff.gz, as I
> > believe that this makes the package awkward to extend when Ubuntu
> > seeks to add patches: I'd much prefer that each package have a patch
> > s
Emmet Hikory wrote:
> I am not advocating the storage of patches in the diff.gz, as I
> believe that this makes the package awkward to extend when Ubuntu
> seeks to add patches: I'd much prefer that each package have a patch
> system. I understand that for work in Debian, using a VCS in place
One thing I think this dicussion misses is consideration of how our merge
tools work. Think of the case of a package with inline changes fron Debian
and an Ubuntu change also and the Debian maintainer adds the Ubuntu change
to hs package in Debian.
If the Ubuntu change is also in line merge-o-
Phillip Susi wrote:
> Emmet Hikory wrote:
>> these trivial (but very common) cases, the work for a later Ubuntu
>> merger to discover that the patch system and attendant patches are no
>> longer relevant is of similar volume to that of an Ubuntu merger
>> presented with a couple of patches in diff.
Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Has debian policy changed in the last few years?
>
> No, but in Debian, policy follows practice. It doesn't leadt it. The
> current flirtation with various DVCS seems to have pushed things in this
> direction. Unfortunately this leaves all the structure in the DVCS a
Stephan Hermann wrote:
> Again, we don't have to discuss the pros and cons of a patch system. We
> have them, and we should use them, but on Ubuntu, when the original
> maintainer in debian doesn't use a patch system, we shouldn't introduce
> one but using the way the debian maintainer is using.
I
Stefan Potyra wrote:
> This is quite a good example, why I personally believe that patch systems for
> universe packages shouldn't be added: Assuming that a patch is still relevant
> and functional because it applies cleanly (or the other way round) is quite a
> flawed approach. You should in al
Emmet Hikory wrote:
> Actually, the monolithic patch that the Debian Maintainer
> frequently doesn't want to see is the debdiff from the ubuntu version,
> rather than the raw diff.gz. This is presented by default on the PTS,
> and can be useful for some packages, but is often not the best way
Hi,
On Thursday 21 August 2008 22:36:20 Phillip Susi wrote:
[..]
> With a patch system the old
> .diff.gz will always apply cleanly to a new upstream tarball since it
> only adds files to debian/, and then when you build it tries to apply
> each patch individually and if one fails, disabling it o
Phillip Susi wrote:
> Emmet Hikory wrote:
>>Why? Why should the Debian Maintainer care about the monolithic
>> patch as applied in Ubuntu (perhaps also cluttered by several
>> changelog entries about merges that have happened, or rebuilds). Is
>> it not best practice to send those patches rel
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 04:36:20PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > I think the problem is, that many people don't know, that debian
> > source packages do have this diff.gz handling, which is also a "patch"
> > system. Not the best one, but actually it works.
>
> And that's
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:35:31 -0400 Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> I really wonder who brought up the (wrong) claim that *not* using a
>> patch system was deprecated in the first place.
>
>It isn't deprecated; it's something you were never supposed to do.
>
>>> I
Emmet Hikory wrote:
>> upload), or it can be an in-package patch system; but it is important to
>> have /some/ mechanism for labelling your changes so that you aren't left
>> with a single massive diff.
>
> Why? Why should the Debian Maintainer care about the monolithic
> patch as applied in
Stephan Hermann wrote:
> I think the problem is, that many people don't know, that debian
> source packages do have this diff.gz handling, which is also a "patch"
> system. Not the best one, but actually it works.
And that's exactly the problem. You don't WANT patches munged up into
the single ma
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> I really wonder who brought up the (wrong) claim that *not* using a
> patch system was deprecated in the first place.
It isn't deprecated; it's something you were never supposed to do.
>> In the first case, if you are going to start patching you need to use
>> one of the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:31:41AM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If you have more than one change to the upstream source of a Debian package,
> > then you need some system to manage the changes to indicate which parts of
> > the patch belong to which functional change -- i.
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 12:29 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why? Why should the Debian Maintainer care about the monolithic
> > patch as applied in Ubuntu (perhaps also cluttered by several
> > changelog entries about merges that have happened, or rebuilds). Is
> > it not best practice to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:23:27AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you run into a package that does not already have some kind of
> > patch system there are 2 possibilities:
> >
> > 1) The package has never needed to be patched before
> > 2) The
Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you run into a package that does not already have some kind of
> patch system there are 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) The package has never needed to be patched before
> 2) The package has been patched by directly modifying the original
> upstream files, w
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:31:27PM -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the
> > packages,
> > there are some good practices and a lot of developers try to
Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you have more than one change to the upstream source of a Debian package,
> then you need some system to manage the changes to indicate which parts of
> the patch belong to which functional change -- i.e., a "patch management
> system". This can be a set of VCS feature b
On Tuesday 19 August 2008 16:41, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2008-08-19 kello 16:34 -0400, Phillip Susi kirjoitti:
> > I have to disagree. If you are applying patches you must use a patch
> > system to comply with the debian packaging guidelines ( otherwise you
> > modify the .orig.tar.gz and you
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:34 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> I have to disagree. If you are applying patches you must use a patch
> system to comply with the debian packaging guidelines ( otherwise you
> modify the .orig.tar.gz and you shouldn't be doing that ).
Where did this meme turn up? As L
ti, 2008-08-19 kello 16:34 -0400, Phillip Susi kirjoitti:
> I have to disagree. If you are applying patches you must use a patch
> system to comply with the debian packaging guidelines ( otherwise you
> modify the .orig.tar.gz and you shouldn't be doing that ).
That's not actually correct. The
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> I think our job as downstreams is to provide patches to Debian, not
>> tell them how to maintain their packages.
>
> Excatly.
>
> Please note that adding a patch system to a package that previously
> didn't adds additional noise in the debdiff. So please, don't.
>
> (w
"Jordan Mantha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also i will suggest to the revu reviewers to ask the
>> packagers to add a patch system on their packages.
>>What did you think about it? Any comments?
>>
>
> I think our job as downstreams is to provide patches to Debian, not
> tell them how t
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:31:27PM -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the
On Sunday 17 August 2008 01:37, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 01:27 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > For Debian, many maintainers keep their packages in their favorite VCS
> > and so
> > it's less relevant as a policy issue.
>
> Yes, but for the debian maintainers it will be eas
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the packages,
> there are some good practices and a lot of developers try to use patch
> systems whenever they can and don't touch the source code o
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the packages,
> there are some good practices and a lot of developers try to use patch
> systems whenever they can and don't touch the source code
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 01:27 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> For Debian, many maintainers keep their packages in their favorite VCS
> and so
> it's less relevant as a policy issue.
Yes, but for the debian maintainers it will be easy to check for
separate patches on the debian derivatives than read
On Sunday 17 August 2008 00:49, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote:
> Hi!
> Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the packages,
> there are some good practices and a lot of developers try to use patch
> systems whenever they can and don't touch the source code outside
> debian/ direc
Hi!
Currently there is no policy about how to make changes in the packages,
there are some good practices and a lot of developers try to use patch
systems whenever they can and don't touch the source code outside
debian/ directly, but that's still at the developer's discretion.
For
33 matches
Mail list logo
