[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [The good, the bad and] The Ugly -- the cosmetic rant

> I can see where a patch.diff might come in. It may not always be the
> result of a DD not cleaning out the debian/ directory before building.
> It may even be an essential part of the build process.

Yes, but probably with a more suitable name.. (note that I checked the
patch.diff itself, and it was a patch against debian/postinst; I
should have mentioned that)

> Sometimes it's a good idea to have separated patch diffs around, rather
> than applying them en masse to the source code (except at build time to
> a copy of the source, usually generated by "cp -l"). This can make
> handling complex packages much easier.

Yes. I've done that a few times, and prefer patching the sources at
build time, instead of having all the patches mixed in the .diff.gz.
> Me? I leave the dh_make comments in for the next poor soul who may have
> to mangle my packages, or for if I have to modify the build script in
> the future to use one of the unused targets.

Why not change them to something more appropriate then? Which wouldn't
say what to add below a comment, but would describe what the following
block is doing. IMO, that is far more useful when you give the package
to someone else.

Attachment: pgpJdQaQbNrLL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: