Re: holding back the tide

[Adam Heath <adam@doogie.org>]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 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.

I don't like -p0, as it doesn't allow the top-level dir to be changed.  dbs
has -p1 hardcoded, but, I'll try to make it not be so the next generation
version.

You can put a description in the patch, just like you can with
dpatches.  Patch itself will ignore non-diff text in the file, read the
manpage. :)

> 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.

I wasn't putting it down.  Each system has evolved to perform what the users
have desired of it.

----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++++ P+ L++++ !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO----
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>        Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E    63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA  3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-----END PGP INFO-----