On Wednesday 12 November 2014 10:47:30 Raphael Hertzog wrote: [snip] > > I'd like to note that there are very good reasons for a debian-only, > > overlay-style packaging repository too. This section should, in my > > opinion, at least acknowledge that, and briefly mention it as an option. > > I find it a bit sad that it was outright discouraged. > > I'm open to that, but IMO the only case where there are very good reasons > are the case where the upstream data is really huge and not easily > patchable anyway (i.e. the case of openarena-data that Simon Mc Vittie > described in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/08/msg00582.html).
Bandwith and disk space. The upstream data not being easily patchable is just
and addition here (IMPOV). And yes, bandwith and disk space is not so cheap
everywhere.
> Are there other reasons that you consider good enough to impose the above
> penalties on other possible contributors (i.e. making it impossible to use
> gbp pq or similar tools to update debian/patches)?
Yes: when using tools like gbp sometimes (which becomes more valid with
newcomers) don't really know what's really happening. We in the Qt/KDE team
have found that it's much simple and straightforward to just keep debian/ and
teach people the workflow basics, specially when trying to debug a workflow
over IRC :)
Of course, this is experience and YMMV. It works for us at least ;)
If someone wants to use a local branch for keeping the source and use tools
like gpb they are free to do so, locally. IIRC Maxy has achieved this for KDE
stuff.
--
7: Hay diferencia entre "cortar" un archivo y "borrarlo" o "eliminarlo"
* Depende cuando se "cuelgue" Windows
Damian Nadales
http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
