On Mon, 9 May 2011 13:46:28 -0700 Jonathan Marsden <jmars...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, yes, I could. But isn't one major benefit of using the new > quilt-based packaging source format to *avoid* the need for this sort of > manual patch creation work, especially for small changes like this? No, 3.0 (quilt) include facilities to create and use patches. You can let dpkg generated the patch, but usually you rename it to something more useful than debian-changes .... > As I understand it, the new 3.0 format allows (and in some sense > encourages) packagers to "just make the change" and let the package > build system worry about how to store it. It even puts a nice > DEP-3-consistent comment tag about the LP bug into the generated patch > file, all automatically. Same here, it's a tool to help. Even the DEP-3 are incomplete, you need to fill them. Also, you don't need all the text above the DEP-3 tag. Technically, yes, you could let the patch like this, but it's just horribly ugly :) > So... shouldn't we use that nice new capability? Especially > since this patch is probably going to get integrated upstream pretty > soon anyway :) Integrate upstream doesn't mean released. For example, LXDE doesn't release very often, so it's possible that your patch will be kept during 1 or more cycle. > Can you explain the value of (or reason for) continuing to create > patches "by hand" in this situation? You can keep the patch generated, but please, improve it a bit. It doesn't mean you have to re-create it by hand, just use this one and customize it with quilt. Regards, Julien Lavergne -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/737275 Title: Generic icon in windows list -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
