Advantages of simpler patch management tools

martin f krafft madduck at
Fri Oct 12 16:05:30 UTC 2007

also sprach Remi Vanicat <remi.vanicat at> [2007.10.12.1637 +0100]:
> I believe that the security team had tell us that they prefer at
> the opposite to have a diff.gz where all the patch are applied, so
> that they don't have to know which patch system we use to make
> a security fix on a package.

Can you provide a reference for this?

> I've the same concern. Can we ask to all contributor to our
> package to know how to use git ?

No, we can't; uh, we should not. But we should also not grind to
a halt in terms of innovation.

What we should consider is a high-level package maintenance tool,
which can shield the user from all the intricacies of the actual
tools in use but also allow their direct use.

I initially wanted to do this as part of my Ph.D. thesis, but then
decided not to. Still, I am interested in it, just not in an
academic setting.

You might want to have a look at and around page 19 of my (outdated)

Doing a UI study and then a bottom-up approach to tool design could
be really cool. Will (Thompson), didn't I just see you subscribe?
Are you still interested in this?

martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net at madduck
"there was no difference between the behavior of a god
 and the operations of pure chance..."
                              -- thomas pynchon, "gravity's rainbow"
spamtraps: madduck.bogus at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (see
Url : 

More information about the vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list