Le dimanche 29 mai 2011 à 10:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > b/ modify dpkg-source --before-build to keep a trace of the fact that > it applied the patches (for example by creating > .pc/dpkg-source-auto-applied) and in that case have dpkg-source > --after-build unapply the patches so that we're back to a clean > state after a succesful build. > If the build fails, we'd keep the patches applied. > > My preference goes to b/ because it doesn't require changes for people > who like to keep the patches applied in their VCS too. And it's the > principle of least surprise, you keep the same state afer a build than > you had before the build (so it's still ok for people who rely > on the scenario unpack/hack/rebuild). I’m not fond of the idea of having dpkg behave differently based on the presence of a VCS. This should be orthogonal, especially given that people have different usage patterns for their VCS. Hence b/ looks much more reasonable. > But it still happens that those patches are generated[1] when the maintainer > did not expect any change at all. That's why we added the option > --abort-on-upstream-changes for maintainers who never wants dpkg-source > to auto-create a patch. > > I wonder if I should not make this option the default Yes please. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part