dpkg source format 3 (quilt) packages, was: RFS: a52dec.git

[Andres Mejia]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Felipe Sateler <fsateler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 09:38 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Felipe Sateler <fsateler at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > Is this really the intended way? TBH, I have doubts, and would find it
>> >> > more natural if the patches would be applied to the debian branch then,
>> >> > as it would retain the invariant that a git checkout produces a similar
>> >> > view of the source as a 'dpkg-source -x' on the produced source package.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yeap this is intended way.
>> >>
>> >> dpkg-source -x applies patches and leaves you with a patched tree.
>> >> That's the mail reason for the new format.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately git-buildpackage has not yet been updated to handle this
>> >> in a better way. Cause we still should have debain/patches/*.patch
>> >>
>> >> And I have no clue how to handle this =)
>> >
>> >
>> > I have been suggested to apply all patches on the git repo, but this
>> > would break the guidelines in the wiki.
>>
>> When given these options:
>>
>>   1: switch back to source v1
>>   2: apply patches inline to the debian branch (and amend the wiki)
>>   3: leave the patches unapplied (current situation)
>>
>> I would (currently) vote 1>2>3
>>
>> Rationale: switching to v3 at this point introduces even more
>> inconsistency in our packaging and obviously our advocated tool
>> 'git-buildpackage' doesn't cope with this new format properly yet.
>>
>> While I am not opposed at all to the new format, and besides, I'm really
>> looking forward using it, I don't think that our team is ready for it yet.
>>
>> what do you think?
>
> I agree. There is no hurry to move to 3.0, so we can wait for tools to
> adapt to it.

I would like to leave using the new source formats optional for those
that want to experiment with it and report bugs (it is a release goal
after all).