On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:27 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:34:58PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > > So please go for patch/unpatch. > > > > An unpatch target might be problematic. There're packages with patches > > that touch the upstream Makefile, and calling 'make unpatch' before > > 'make clean' can break things; of course the clean target can depend on > > Then just make unpatch depends on clean. > > Anyhow, we were discussing naming here, that is the API for the package > maintainer to implement, while you seem to dig into details on how the > proposed target names should be internally implemented ... "debian/rules clean" should remove patches so that dpkg-buildpackage doesn't include the patches in the diff.gz twice. (It might also have to apply a patch to fix upstream's build system. Well, so be it.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I'm not a reverse psychological virus. Please don't copy me into your sig.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part