On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:58 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > On 10/5/2010 9:50 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Oct 05, 2010, at 09:37 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > > > >> Now, I would imagine that the *interesting* merges are not clean like > >> this. Why would you really care about merging if debian isn't adding > >> patches to the upstream code? (Other than procedurally being the right > >> thing to do, it doesn't seem *interesting*.) > > > > Won't all the patches Debian (or Ubuntu) adds be in patch system files > > living > > in debian/? Of course, the looms<->patchsystem idea kind of blurs that, but > > ultimately the packaging directory should fully contain any downstream > > changes > > Ubuntu or Debian would add. (I think. ;)
> So by debian policy, any changes to the tree will be in patches. But you > have to consider that v3 deb packages also contain those changes in the > tree itself. You can have differences that are not in patches in case debian ships something as upstream tarball that is not actually the upstream tarball. This happens for example when the upstream tarball contains files that are considered non-free under the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Those are removed - and e.g. the build system is modified to no longer rely on them - and repackaged. Other things can also cause (slight) differences if you're comparing to an upstream vcs. E.g. if you're getting upstream from a branch then the Debian package might have the configure script checked in or an updated copy of config.guess. Cheers, Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
