Re: Proposal for the tools policy
I demand that Stefan Potyra may or may not have written...
> Am Wednesday 20 September 2006 21:17 schrieb Miriam Ruiz:
[snip]
>> 2) Use a patching system, preferably quilt but dpatch is also acceptable.
>> Explanation: If we don't modify the sources directly, we don't have to
>> store all of them in the versioning system. Having individual patches for
>> individual changes makes everything more clear. Using a patching system
>> instead of relaying in SVN logs
Do you mean "relying on"?
[snip]
> For 2-4 I'd like to add an exception for autotools generated stuff, which
> imho is much more confusing/difficult to have in a patch system (at least
> in dpatch, haven't tried to do it with quilt yet)
It's quite easy: make sure that the patch which alters generated files (which
are present in the tarball) is applied last, and update it whenever any patch
which touches those files' sources is altered.
> and is not really of any use in patch form (can't send it to upstream and
> needs to be regenerated for each new upstream release).
It is of use: it makes sure that the generated files have more recent
datestamps than their sources.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Use more efficient products. Use less. BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
It is annoying to be honest to no purpose.
Reply to: