On Nov 12, 2007 9:33 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:13:45 -0600 "Justin Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >It sounds like it sort of solves much of both problems. > > I'm not sure what you mean. I think it makes patch systems even more > critical because you don't typically keep the upstream tarball in the VCS.
I'm assuming you mean keeping the upstream release in VCS, not some compressed representation. That seems silly. At least, more silly than not keeping upstream code in VCS. It seems like a patch oriented system is the sort of thing that makes it simple for a security team to inspect source with, eliminates "patches on patches" ugliness, make it simple to select and integrate patches, and as a bonus, works with binary files. Joey Hess has more[1] on the subject, but he covers the use git. Having used neither, I'm not prepared to make any advocacy for one over the other, but they both sound like patch systems with advanced history features. Justin Dugger [1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/an_evolutionary_change_to_the_Debian_source_package_format/ -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
