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

Re: The automake issue, and why crippling 1.6 is a bad plan

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:24:27AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > What you propose will add huge amounts to the diffs, most of which can be
> > expected to not apply to future versions, and is not trivally thrown out
> > before applying the Debian diff to a new upstream version.
> FUD:
>  * generated files are already often shipped in .diff.gz (seems to be
>    the case in libsdl1.2_1.2.4-1.diff.gz).

I inherited SDL and all of its problems mere weeks before woody's release.
Anything which did not absolutely need fixing right then and there was not
fixed.  This was, in fact, the first thing I did fix upon repackaging SDL,
even before touching issues like sound plugins.  A simple script snippet
deletes the changed files in the clean target, resulting in a diff which
did not contain this mess.

The current SDL packages were messy enough I thought it prudent to
completely repackage it, rather than fixing up the existing package.  I've
posted my plans for doing this and what the hold-ups are for doing it
(woody's eventual release being #1 on the list for now.)   No opinion can
objectively be formed based on the existing SDL packages because I
basically was not permitted the time before release necessary to actually
make the package sane.

>  * conflicts will occur on generated files, so they won't matter since
>    they are regenerated by package maintainer.

There is increased work here since one must then clean up all of the
droppings left behind.  Higher number of things which may go wrong.
(This doesn't apply to DBS packages, which can have a new patch trivially
regenerated without applying the old..)

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>     The guy with a rocket launcher
<doogie> dpkg has bugs?  no way!

Attachment: pgptYDxZUc0zv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: