Le Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:51:26AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit : > Perhaps you could talk to upstream about switching to either using > unified diffs for updates, tarballs for every release or a git/etc > repository?
For sure, Debian can suggest them git, Ubuntu can suggest them bzr, Fedora can suggest them cvs, and Opensuze can suggest them svn. I do not mind working with patches instad of archive updates. For Debian, it also has the advantage of not having 12 orig.gz updates per year (12 × 20 Mo archives). I do not know how it matters with recent hard drives, however… And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them apart that unified diff is the preferred format of some Debian developers, and that we like that others use the formats that we prefer. I think that is a too weak argument, so unless there is a real flaw in the format used upstream, I will not bother them for a change. This formats works with quilt, so I do not understand why it would be difficult to get it work with the format ’3.0 (quilt)’ of dpkg. According to the current discussion, the problem is more political than technical. We already do not manage to agree internally on what is the best workflow. I can propose Upstream to adapt their habits to our habits, but this has to come with benefits that overcome the energy invested in the changes, and the fact that what is best for distributor A will not match what distributor B expects. Much saner in my opinion is to have a toolchain that is liberal in what it accepts. (Hence the proposition to accept upstream ‘zip’ archives). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
