Hi! On Sat, 2019-07-27 at 03:28:23 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.19.7 > Severity: normal
> If a package has single-debian-patch in debian/source/options, quilt is not > supposed to be used (it is technically still used because there's no > quilt-less non-native format, and 3.0 has many upsides besides the downside > of quilt). quilt(1) is never used nor depended on by dpkg-source. This is just a serialization format, I guess the name is a bit unfortunate as it seems to trip over people that dislike the tool. For example I've had in mind adding an extraction option that would unpack the source, make it a git tree, and import the patch series as git commits. > Yet, the produced single patch still receives DEP3 headers. > These headers won't ever be filled out (there's no chance to do so without > employing additional steps), are likely to contain invalid/outdated data, > and tend to leak some state of intermediate development of the package (such > as "try 17", personal notes, profanity, etc). These headers pick random > pieces of such state, and not even update those bits in subsequent > invocations of dpkg-buildpackage -S unless some part of the upstream tree > got changed again. And, the quiltage is not visible to modern tools such as > git -- it's a mere implementation detail. I see how this is inconvenient. So I guess I'll either disable them for the single-debian-patch case, or perhaps add a generic header stating that this is an autogenerated patch due to the single-debian-patch option or similar, and that there's no further information available. I think what you might actually want is to use debian/source/patch-header or debian/source/local-patch-header, as documented in the dpkg-source(1) man page to note where the actual patches are located, etc. Which would have prevented the autogenerated headers to be output. > Thus, these headers do no good, and can do harm -- and in any case, they're > spam. Thus, please suppress these headers if single-debian-patch is used. [ I think “spam” here is way over the top, but oh well. ] Sure will do something about it. Thanks, Guillem
