Patch metadata consistency

[Niko Tyni]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:06:52AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

> .patch is slightly nicer in my view too. I'm on the fence about whether
> a huge diff is sensible for 5.16.

I suppose we should just filter the .patch extension away in
gen-patchlevel along with .diff one, and maybe do a mass patch renaming
for 5.18. Or just chop off all suffixes and not care about inconsistency
at the source package level as long as patchlevel.h is clean enough.

If we do keep a list of filtered extensions, there's still some use
for a maintainer test to check that no new suffixes creep in. 

> Yes, probably. I hadn't twigged that concise URLs were important for
> patchlevel.h.

On second thought, I think gen-patchlevel should just fix up these ones
(i.e. transform the long URLs to the concise form.) The URL length doesn't
really matter much in the patch metadata as long as it works. As above,
keeping patchlevel.h clean should be enough.

> Not sure it's worth bothering about for wheezy or not.

I believe we're past the point where such changes were accepted for
wheezy.

So, this seems to boil down to a few tweaks in gen-patchlevel that I
should really have done straight away instead of writing a long mail.
Sorry for the fuss :)
-- 
Niko Tyni   ntyni at debian.org