question about iptables and bug #538608

Jérémy Lal · External Since: Jul 29, 2009 Posts: 4

the "renamed debian/patches to debian/patch to avoid
3.0-quilt-by-default bug reports"
changelog in latest iptables makes me uncomfortable...
is it something we should all do eventually ?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 533

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> the "renamed debian/patches to debian/patch to avoid
> 3.0-quilt-by-default bug reports"
> changelog in latest iptables makes me uncomfortable...
> is it something we should all do eventually ?

Definitely no.

Some maintainers with complex build system might want to handle patches
separately and not let dpkg-source handle it, in that case it can make
sense.

But in most cases, one should simply adapt the build system to be
compatible with the new source format 3.0 (quilt). It usually doesn't
involve many changes.

In the case of iptables, I really don't think it was warranted to work
around in that way but since it's up to the maintainer...

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Francesco P. Lovergine · External Since: Nov 15, 2004 Posts: 191

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > the "renamed debian/patches to debian/patch to avoid
> > 3.0-quilt-by-default bug reports"
> > changelog in latest iptables makes me uncomfortable...
> > is it something we should all do eventually ?
>
> Definitely no.
>
> Some maintainers with complex build system might want to handle patches
> separately and not let dpkg-source handle it, in that case it can make
> sense.
>
> But in most cases, one should simply adapt the build system to be
> compatible with the new source format 3.0 (quilt). It usually doesn't
> involve many changes.
>
> In the case of iptables, I really don't think it was warranted to work
> around in that way but since it's up to the maintainer...
>
> Cheers,

At least in one case, I change the series file on-fly at building time
to create different flavors of the same lib with a different patchset.
I roughly suspect this is not compatible with the 3.0 format, but it
is also difficult to be auto-detected...

--
Francesco P. Lovergine

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Henrique de Moraes Holsch · External Since: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 648

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> At least in one case, I change the series file on-fly at building time
> to create different flavors of the same lib with a different patchset.
> I roughly suspect this is not compatible with the 3.0 format, but it
> is also difficult to be auto-detected...

Dear god! I hope your package has a debian/README.Source file explaining
that?

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org