On 05/09/14 13:10, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 04/09/14 20:40, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> The file is patched, but now I have an d/p/0005- file instead of a modified >> 0003- patch file. Sigh. > > The systemd maintainers [...]
It might also be worth noting that the systemd maintainers switched from git-dpm to gbp-pq recently (between 204 and 208, I think), so they obviously didn't think git-dpm was the better option. The systemd package is an interesting stress-test for patch systems, because: * upstream don't do formal micro releases (there is no v208.1 and probably never will be) but they do cherry-pick a lot of bugfixes to a stable-branch (e.g. v208-stable), so the Debian maintainers apply patches from the upstream v208-stable branch in bulk; * the Debian maintainers also apply a significant number of local patches to preserve historical functionality of Debian's udev and sysvinit, some of which are never going to go upstream so managing its patch-set is non-trivial. This might mean that the right decision for systemd is not the same as the right decision as for a package that will hopefully only have a couple of Debian patches; I don't know. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5409aada.5020...@debian.org