Re: Do you use the DBS? Document it!
>> Adam Heath <email@example.com> writes:
> I'd suggest README.building, myself.
Sounds good, too.
> Note, that there is another source patch system out there, in use by
> at least glibc and gcc, that existed before dbs did. I have no
> connection with that system(which is commonly known as dpatch).
That's precisely the problem. Everyone is implementing more or less
the same idea with inconsistent UIs. I don't care if the UIs are not
the same. I just want to unpack the source without having to wander
thru debian/rules files. What I'm saying is basically:
# Unpack and patch sources
whatever your patch system uses to unpack and patch
I really don't mind the inconsistent locations for the unpacked and
patched sources. Those are usually easy to guess after a simple ls.
> As for DBS packages, the only official way to get at the source is
> thru sys-build.mk.
which is good. The problem is that you have to first figure out
that/if the package is using the official DBS. That's the reason why
I'm asking for an standarized method to unpack and patch. Since we are
all used to 'debian/rules action', using 'unpack' as the action sounds
reasonable to me.
> source.make: $(STAMP_DIR)/source.make
which is also fine. As long as there's eventually a single one for
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com