Re: Proposal for the tools policy
On 21/09/06, Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> individual changes makes everything more clear. Using a patching system
>> instead of relaying in SVN logs
Do you mean "relying on"?
You need an Internet connection to see where (which changeset) did a
change came from. This is unpractical since changes are not atomical
when viewed offline, but they gain atomicity if svn blamed (which
needs a connection with the SVN server).
> 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.
Please see the Glest counter-example in a previous mail of mine.
> 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.
Huh? That doesn't mean that upstream can't place the bootstrapped
source in the orig tarball. Is only a matter of shifting
reasponability.
--
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Reply to: