On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:39 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 14:27:35 Bill Nottingham wrote: > > The question is... how much does working in an exploded tree push you > > towards less incentive to get a set of patches and changes upstream. > > > > Heck, we could just work in exploded source and start claiming we *are* > > the upstream... > > We have to do it in a way that makes the exploaded tree useful for managing > your CHANGES to that exploaded tree. We don't let the sourcerpm passed into > the buildsystem be of a modified tarball, we continue to force it to be the > unmodified upstream tarball plus the patches that you've been managing with > the exploaded tree applied to it. This continues to enforce the patches are > valid to a known release, allows you to use exploaded tree to manage the > patches, gives upstream a place to cherry pick changes from, or old style > patch files to deal with. That then begs the question as to why we can't have a simple 'make explode' target. Or why people can't do 'make sources' + untar themselves, or run rpmbuild -bp.. For the vast majority of packages, I don't think having an exploded tree in the SCM helps anything. And it simply adds more overhead for those packages. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
