Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 10:13:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't like the last wording proposal in that it advocates strongly >> against using quilt or dpatch, which as near as I can tell from other >> Debian mailing list discussion and packaging teams are widely >> considered best practices inside Debian even though they don't >> immediately give you editable source. > It does not advocate against quilt/dpatch: you can use quilt or dpatch > and provide editable source. It is just a matter of having clean depend > on 'patch' instead of 'unpatch'. Even if you do that you can't just edit the source and build the package and expect things to work properly. You put the package into a weird state where all of the patches aren't represented in the patch system and, for example, quilt pop -a won't work properly. (Not to mention that I think this is a bad idea for other reasons; the patch applied state is not the best starting point for working on a package that uses quilt.) If the package is using quilt or dpatch, anyone modifying the package really does need to use quilt or dpatch to manage the modifications. >> #65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a >> part of Debian distribution >> I think this is a great idea and should be done. However, I don't >> think it's currently being done with contrib and non-free packages, so >> it's one of the standard Policy chicken-and-egg situations. I'm in >> favor of applying this at the recommendation level (instead of the >> should that's in the current wording). > Another issue is that packages that are not in the Debian archive are > not bound by policy. Packages in contrib and non-free are. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
