Hi, On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 at 10:31 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Markus Wigge dixit: > > >Funny, and after "make update-patches" you still have the comments? > > Of course? That's part of the design. > > >And what if one single file is patched for different reasons? > > Then the OLD system definitively sucks more than update-patches, > because if a file is patched several times, stuff like "which > .orig file belongs to which patch and which is my real pristine > file now", "which patch depends on which patch", etc. appears. > > This point of yours seems to be the weak point of update-patches > at first, but if you work with it for a while, you see it's > actually an improvement. Plus, you always get diffs which are > guaranteed to apply. They're even applying with a greater chance > to succeed after you update the package. (You should still regen > them afterwards, but it helps the upgrader.) > > >Let's skip this system with > >busybox too then. > > That's up to the busybox subsystem maintainer. wbx and I aren't > forcing anyone. I just do want people to not think that the new > system is inferiour.
That is the point. We do not force anyone to use make update-patches. The maintainer of a package decides on his own. I really had problems to integrate my udhcp background patch to ifupdown, because of the old structure. Therefore I decided to switch to autogenerated patches, which saves me a lot of time. For trunk we should use a maintainer model for packages. Now the question: How we establish maintainership for packages in trunk? Does we have enough developers to take maintainership for important packages? Who wants to maintain a package in trunk? bye Waldemar -- don't open your wrt, free it http://www.freewrt.org _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
