Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Adrian Bunk > Hi, > > looking at something where I worked on the upstream implementation ages ago: > https://sources.debian.org/src/liferea/1.12.4-1/debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch/ > > It is a common problem that users should be able to get started quickly > after installing a

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Adrian Bunk > > > Hi, > > > > looking at something where I worked on the upstream implementation ages ago: > > https://sources.debian.org/src/liferea/1.12.4-1/debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch/ > > > > It is a common

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Iain Lane
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > One obvious solution if vendor-specific series files get outlawed in > > Debian would be to switch from ubuntu.series to manual patching in > > debian/rules based on dpkg-vendor(1). > > Or it would mean that Ubuntu would carry

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Ian Jackson
Iain Lane writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea"): > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > One obvious solution if vendor-specific series files get outlawed in > > > Debian would be to switch from ubuntu.series to

Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be permitted in the archive

2018-08-17 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Marga, On Wed 15 Aug 2018 at 11:35AM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > Apart from this, the concern that has been raised about making packages > instabuggy is valid. I would like our decision to include that this > should > be SHOULD first, giving maintainers a window of time to fix

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 08:58:49AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:22:17AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > >> For example, someone might want to use a Debian system to investigate a > >> bug on an

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > In general, I think package builds should not pay any attention to > dpkg-vendor. Can I please add that request to the TC's deliberations ? This is about package builds, not the unpacking of source packages, so is surely a

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:22:17AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: >> For example, someone might want to use a Debian system to investigate a >> bug on an Ubuntu system. They might begin by downloading some source >> packages from the

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Ian Jackson
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea"): > The main misconception is that there would always be *the* source. > > Steps you might have before the compilation starts: > 1. dpkg unpacks upstream sources > 2. dpkg applies patches > 3.

Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would be a bad idea

2018-08-17 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 07:33:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series > would be a bad idea"): > > The main misconception is that there would always be *the* source. > > > > Steps you might have before the compilation starts: >