Call for discussion: Migrating from interdiff to diff.gz for new upstream sponsoring
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Wed Jan 9 22:08:06 GMT 2008
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 15:59, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 1:59 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I like diff.gz better than interdiff.
> > Perhaps a diff of the debian/dirs would be even easier (Changes outside
> > the debian dir that need to be maintained should be patched). Then the
> > sponsorship work flow would be something like:
> > 1. Get the current source package.
> > 2. Get the new upstream based on the watch file (uscan)
> > 3. Review the provided 'patch' to the debian dir
> > 4. Apply the patch
> > 5. Build, Test, Etc.
> > Anythiing in diff.gz outside the debian dir that needs to be preserved
> > from release to release should be dealt with as a special case.
> There are a signficiant number of packages in the archive that do
> not use a patch system, and in many cases, the Debian Maintainer has a
> strong reason to not do so. The most common seems to be using a VCS
> compatible with upstream including the full upstream source for
> packaging, and maintaining patches in the VCS for better coordination
> with upstream.
> In the interests of not creating greater variance with Debian,
> increasing the chances that we can later sync any new upstream
> packages with Debian, and being able to handle special cases (e.g. a
> patch is required to run $(MAKE) clean), a solution that does support
> changes external to debian is preferred.
> Also, regarding point #2, uscan doesn't work for all packages:
> many upstreams don't distribute in .tar.gz format, some packages
> require removal of non-free data, and some packages do not include a
> version string in the upstream release file. To support this, it may
> be better to use `debian/rules get-orig-source || uscan
> --force-download` to pull the new upstrem version, rather than just
> the watch file.
> Lastly, a number of packages have issues with the current watch
> file or get-orig-source (although this number is decreasing), so it
> may be preferable to use the watch file or get-orig-source rule from
> the new candidate, rather than that from the existing package. It may
> be better to review the diff and apply the patch prior to collecting
> the new upstream tarball, just to take advantage of any improvements
> in the collection rules in these cases.
Yes. I've had to do this myself. The sponsorship workflow was meant to be an
OK. I'm convinced then. Diff.gz is good.
More information about the ubuntu-devel