RFS: updated linuxtv-dvb-apps [Was: r7625 ...]
steph at glondu.net
Sun May 3 17:52:29 UTC 2009
Mark Purcell a écrit :
> I have done the bulk of recent work with dvb-apps and am not against git, but
> also haven't played around with git so I don't yet understand the workflow.
> I'm very comfortable with svn, which is where we are at.
> It's not that i'm against it, but as I don't know how to use it, I'm hesitant
> to make wholesale change until I am comfortable.
I was just talking about this one package... nothing more :-)
> Please don't migrate to git yet as I mentioned I'm not yet comfortable.
> I think there are also more important things we could do, such as packaging a
> proper library and as you say working with upstream for proper soname support.
> the range of lintian errors, warnings etc spring to mind.
The point in that migration was to get an environment where I am more
comfortable and efficient... so IMHO it would have been the most
important thing to do (if not THE thing to do) before I do anything else
on the package. You obviously care about the package, so of course, I
will comply to your preferences.
Er... I realize the way I stated things might be quite offending, but I
didn't mean to. There are cases where people are too lazy / have no time
to convert their repository and just stick to the svn repository because
it's been there for a while, even though they are familiar with other
> I would also like to work with upstream on getting a proper release (beyone
> 1.1.1) and in the shorter term pulling a more recent snapshot than rev1207
> into debian.
> I also feel that quilt is overkill for two patches. Indeed dpatch is probably
> overkill and we should be using something like simplpatchsys.
I see quilt just as a way to apply patches. So is dpatch and
simplpatchsys. I prefer quilt because series can be directly serialized
to/from a git branch (with git format-patch/am) with no external hacks.
Besides, it seems more natural with the advent of the new source format
3.0 (quilt). Simplpatchsys, on the other hand, seems too CDBS-specific,
so I'd rather we didn't use that.
> I do like the simplicity of cdbs as well as the wide adoption across Debian
> provides for good long term support. So the simplicity of dh does appeal,
> however it maybe a little early and as I said I think there are better things
> we could do for dvb-apps support.
CDBS is fine as long as there is no build-related problem or
specificities, otherwise it can become a nightmare to customize (without
upstream patching) and to debug... Hopefully, we aren't not there yet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the pkg-vdr-dvb-devel