Re: Proposal for the tools policy

[Stefan Potyra <sistpoty@ubuntu.com>]

Hi,

Am Friday 22 September 2006 18:10 schrieb Darren Salt:
> 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.

Then you'll end up with the unpatched clean rule, which is just the thing you 
tried to modify/fix.

>
> >>> 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.

I was referring to svn checkouts from the debian games svn to build a package 
from, not to svn checkouts to get upstream's sources.

Cheers,
    Stefan.