On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:16 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 14:06:10 Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Absolutely -- they have different reasons for wanting this than we do. > > > > Our reasons are: > > 1) Better able to work with upstream > > 2) Better able to rebase our local changes. > > 3) Better able to see how our changes have been modified over time. > > > > However, the solution they arrive at is similar to what we want. That's > > why looking at it is good. > > I think it's important to note that having exploaded trees with patch > management doesn't exclude generating a srpm with prestine source +patches to > send into the buildsystem and publish in our source repos. What we're > talking about is making it easier to manage the patches on top of the > prestine source. Of course. And contrary to the name of the URL I posted [1]_, the document has this to say: ''' The "source package" can still be obtained from the archive for auditing purposes, however it is no longer the form in which changes are uploaded, so it does not usurp the revision control system underneath. ''' The methodology outlined there is to save changes into the revision control system in such a way that they can be pulled out as patches against upstream and shipped to the build system. We'd want to have a slightly different directory hierarchy since we save spec files outside of the upstream tree and .debs save the spec equivalent inside the upstream tree. [1]_: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NoMoreSourcePackages NoMoreSourcePackages refers to Ubuntu's current need to ship the source to the build system as a source package created on the contributor's machine rather than a set of files in the revision control system. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
