On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:50 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:47 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Instead I prefer a clone of the master upstream git repo and maintain a
> > branch with patches cherry-picked into it. This is used to auto-generate
> > patches for the Fedora RPM, at the same time updating the patch file list
> > in the RPM spec. The only manual step is adding the changelog entry &
> > bumping release number.
>
> Quick note: this is essentially what debian does.
Ugh. Can we please just agree that source-git (vs. dist-git) is almost
always a bad idea?
I can see the benefit for some very complex packages that have lots of
patches, so I think it's not unreasonable for source-git to be an
_option_. (Maybe one that should require approval?)
But I'll echo what I wrote in my other message: for the majority of
packages which are relatively simple and don't deviate much from
upstream, or try not to deviate from upstream, I think it's a bad idea
and won't improve things. We need to keep the simple/everyday use
cases in mind here.
I like that I can build a Fedora package with just a specfile--
essentially, a bit of metadata about how to build and install a
package-- and don't need to modify an upstream archive. I would be
disappointed if we moved towards a Debian-like way of doing packaging.
Ben Rosser