Spice Trade

[Andrew Vaughan]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:52, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > > > One important decision prior to start, should we use debhelper (i'm
> > > > openly for it), and, should we use dpatch or something like that or
> > > > does it make more sense to use just .diff for that?
> > > >
> > > > I know it's probably impossible that we all agree on that, but it
> > > > would be nice to have a common way of doing things so that every
> > > > package is not a whole new world. Ideas?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > So, CDBS plus something like dpatch to manage changes done to
> > > upstream code, so that these changes are clearly isolated and given a
> > > name that could be referred to when talking.
>
> cdbs awful, especially those packages that operate on included tarballs.
> And if we maintain all packages in SVN dpatch doesn't make sense either,
> if one wants to revert a certain change it's a simple as reverting
> a commit. So, I'm certainly in favour of debhelper.
>
> joeyh collected an IRC dialog, which summarises the flaws of cdbs and
> dpatch very well:
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/dpatch_dbs_etc_etc_etc_etc_considered
>_harmful-2005-10-13-06-35.html

I take Colin's point about cdbs+dpatch making it harder to patch packages, 
although surely that could be solved.  However thats an issue for the cdbs 
maintainers.

My packaging experience is almost nil, so I'll defer to your experience.  

Andrew