Well, we have so many policies about tracking patches... If we allow people to simply change the content of the tarball (without version change) instead of doing real patch, it's pointless to track patches as we have no idea whether the tarball is upstream one or how many bundled patches it contains. Well, the point I was making is that I can change the content of a
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:32:06PM +0100, Michal Hrusecky wrote: patch in any way I like, so is it ok for you if I submit a package as a single big patch file?
Anyway, I don't think this is really about people not doing real patches. In all cases I know where tarball changes happened, openSUSE is the upstream and the development happens in a SCM. In that case, the tarball is automatically generated by some CI like Jenkins. So there'll never be patches in this case.
Most of those packages don't put the commit ids in the tarball name, this should probably be changed to make things easier to understand.
At some point in the future OBS will maybe support this even more, then you won't even have a tarball anymore, just the unpacked trees. I think it would be a dangerous move to support dropping tarballs, alot of upstreams build there tarballs with make dist or some equivalent making the tarballs differ from whats available in the source tree normally providing stuff like a configure instead of files that need to have autoreconf called on them. I know Qt also has bigger differences
On 03/04/2014 01:01 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote: then that so i believe it would be a very risky move to allow support for releases that arn't the exact tar that is released by a upstream. Cheers, Simon
Cheers, Michael.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org