On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:58:30PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 16:36:12 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:

Until we have a clear idea on how format 3.0 (quilt) should be used with git-buildpackage, I'd suggest to revert this change.

If one does not use --export-dir git-buildpackage fails miserably.

I've never used that option, but after reading git-buildpackage(1), I'm not sure if this helps.

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:08:49PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:

If you do not have the patches applied, it works. I have been working
like this for the csound package.

...together with me :-)

Jonas, perhaps you answer these questions:

- do you commit the quilt control directory .pc/?

- do you commit the tree with patches applied?

- if not, is everyone expected to run 'quilt pop -a' before committing
 changes to the tree?

So there is your answer to the questions: No - I commit unapplied patches, not applied ones or quilt noise!

I use git-buildpackage, not topgit!

Sorry, I still think this mode of operation is pretty silly. I'd much prefer if the patches were maintained by git-buildpackage as proper git commits instead of text files. Upon source package generation, these commits need to be exported as quilt patches of course. This way, updating to a new upstream version would use git's conflict resolution mechanisms instead of quilt (which can only merge 2-way, git can do a 3-way merge).

I guess other VCS systems like hg or bzr at least try something in that directions (although I have to admit that I didn't follow the latest developments there).

You are free to find git-buildpackage silly, and prefer different VCSes altogether.

Am I free to not find it silly?  As part of this team?

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to