Dear Chair
reasoning of this policy is really absurd. The opposite is actually true. Usage of vendor patches should be encouraged downstream. That's a free software issue! The goal is to facilitate patches. If Debian want patches it has to support this process with tools. The attitude Debian owns all source packages is wrong. Sharing source packages among different vendors is more efficient. Different patch series may be the best solution in some cases. This policy decision only breaks the workflow. Derivatives have to duplicate the whole source tree. It is a huge burden and waste of resources. Patch series are supported by git-am and git-format-patch. There is no better approach to incorporate patches. I fear circumventing the policy with "QUILT_SERIES=debian/patches/$(dpkg-vendor --query vendor).patch quilt push -a" in debian/rules. The patch series separates vendor specific code properly. If policy is against vendor specific code it has to accept patch series at least. They are a last resort to make independent patches. Builds for different vendors are not a standard use case at all. Identic source after unpacking is possible with dpkg-source --skip-patches anyways. A hint about different series during unpacking can be useful but changing policy because someone was confused is unbelievable. Usage of the right tools is good practice and should not forced with power. The decision is based on wrong assumptions and implications, arguments are weak, valid objections ignored. This is abusing Debian policy and technical committee against free software! Debian needs patches regardless of policy. Yours truly
