Re: Proposal for the tools policy
I demand that Stefan Potyra may or may not have written...
> Am Thursday 21 September 2006 00:21 schrieb Darren Salt:
>> I demand that Stefan Potyra may or may not have written...
>>> 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.
> It's not that easy if you fiddle with upstream's clean rule.
That sounds like unpatch first, clean afterwards to me.
>>> 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.
> Shouldn't this be true for svn checkouts as well?
If that's the case for upstream, I'd call it broken - generated files
shouldn't normally be in the source repository.
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Generate power using sun, wind, water, nuclear. FORGET COAL AND OIL.
Behind your back, your colleagues are talking about Jekyll and Hyde.
Reply to: