Future of REVU and Debian Mentors
emmet.hikory at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 23:29:42 BST 2007
"Jordan Mantha" <mantha at ubuntu.com> writes:
> Simply putting debian/ in a bzr branch with a file that has the URL
> for upstream tarball (which should be in a PPA) would work.
I'd suggest that this file should be debian/watch, or, where
required, defined in get-orig-source: in debian/rules, rather than
being a new file. These locations are well documented, supported by
several tools, and have defined machine-readable formats.
Reinhard Tartler <siretart at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> As I explained in the article in my wiki , this doesn't work for any
> package that doesn't use a patch system. And furthermore, why should I
> use a clumsy patch system if I can have a proper VCS like bazaar?
> >>  http://wiki.tauware.de/misc:vcs-packaging
The reason I prefer a patch system is that it organises the
patches by purpose, rather than historically. With a VCS, it is very
difficult to extract the specific set of changes required to implement
a specific feature, especially when those changes may span several
files, and have been updated several times during this history of the
package to match upstream changes (often in combination with other
updates). Purpose-oriented patches are easier to review for adoption
upstream, and easier to understand as an example to implement a
similar feature in another package.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu