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
system.
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 to
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 and
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.gz that
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 relevant to
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
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
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 Ubuntu
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.
In the first
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 exactly
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 package has
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 send
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.e., a
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
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 to maintain
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.
(well,
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
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 Lars
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 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
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 easy to
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
between Debian and upstream as well, if Debian were
on board.
But until Debian makes DVCS policy, it seems like an increased burden
to move packages away from patch systems and carry that delta. The
good news is that many packages are already in some form of VCS -- the
bad news is a lot aren't. My
23 matches
Mail list logo
