On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:09:50PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> On 2018-02-12 11:22 +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Huh. I hadn't thought of that option, but it seems peculiar and
> > excessively baroque (it basically splits the patch into a remove and an
> > add, making it less obviously identical to the one submitted upstream
> > and harder to keep track of in git). Is there a strong reason to take
> > that approach?
> I'd have done the same as Simon. The main advantage is that it makes
> the tarball free software, which we generally don't get any leeway
The same advantage is gained by simply patching the replacement code
into the regenerated tarball in a single step, rather than removing in
one step and adding in another.
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]