Re: holding back the tide
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:05:23AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Heath writes:
> > Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is, so I don't trust his assement of the
> > issue. I never said glibc nor gcc use dbs. They use a system like dbs, one I
> > feel is incorrect(each .dpatch system includes code to apply the patch, which,
> > I feel, is code duplication).
>
> There was no alternative system, when I "designed" the dpatch
> system. The code duplication is needed, because a .dpatch is
> self-contained. For most cases it calls patch with the .dpatch file as
> the patch file. Other commands are run after applying the
> patch. Currently that's only the case for configure. It's tedious to
> regenerate the patches if you have two independent patches for a
> configure.in. But yes, you could extend this format to use Pre-Patch
> and Post-Patch commands.
On top of that, a lot of patches for gcc are obtained from the
gcc-patches list. Some of those are in -p0 format, some are in -p1. So
it is always useful to not have to modify these. On top of that, each
.dpatch includes a description of what the patch does, so that the gcc
build system can parse it out and put all of the Debian changes into one
file, specific to that revision/arch.
Adam, don't put down a system that precedes dbs. It is tried and true
to it's purpose and solves things that DBS cannot.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: