[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs rdesktop

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Peter FELECAN's message of Sat Feb 05 04:11:02 -0500 2011:

Hi Peter,

> Almost every package among the 110 that I maintain have
> patches. This is nominal for every packaging project,
> viz. Debian. This is why I think that we should provide source
> packages with the patches that we apply. Also, this is why I think
> that it's not required to add a special identifier to our packages
> when a patch is applied.

There is a difference between 'patch to make it work' and 'patch to
add a feature.'  (...If you'll grant me that fact that the working in
the first place doesn't count as a feature :) ) One is essential to
operation, the other more akin to a local fork.  This isn't uncommon
in packaging projects, I agree, but I think it is potentially worth
noting.

The patch to make it work case is less likely to cause problems that
require maintainer time and in-depth source knowledge to fix.  The
patch to add a feature is more likely to do so.  There is more of a
'contract' involved when you cherry-pick upstream patches or make
local modifications of your own design.

I don't think we need to denote every portability patch, but
feature/backport patches do warrant some sort of note.  Is README.CSW
prominent enough?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It should likely be in there
for completeness if nothing else.

The REV string is a good place to stick this info though.  It's part
of the filename, which isn't really useful by itself, but it also
shows up in pkgparam output.  It's completely trivial to add this
information to the REV string.

Just a few early morning thoughts.  Later today I'll go poke at the
Debian standards as I _think_ they have special handling for this too.

As to your other point, we do need to get a standardized source
package though.  This is just one place where it would be beneficial.

Thanks
-Ben
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302