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

Re: Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:32:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear maintainers of CDBS, dpatch, and quilt,
> if you are subscribed to debian-devel@l.d.o, you must have noticed the
> long discussion about patch systems. An idea that was quite popular
> was to standardise the patch target in all patch systems used during
> package building.
> Here is a summary of the targets used by the different makefile
> includes available to the developpers:
> File						Package	To patch	To depatch
> /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make			dpatch	patch		unpatch
> /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make			quilt	patch		unpatch
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk	quilt	apply-patches	reverse-patches
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk	cdbs	apply-patches	reverse-patches
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk		cdbs	apply-dpatches	deapply-dpatches
> Since these five files provide patching facilities to a large number of Debian
> source packages, it would be very advantageous if they could use the same
> name for the patching and depatching rules: developpers could use them
> without needing ab initio knowledge of the underlying system.
> Obviously, there is no solution that wouldn't require a change in at least two
> packages, and that is the reason I contact all of you and CC debian-devel.


I'm sorry I'm so overhelmed currently that I cannot follow d-d.
Whatever the conclusion of the discussion is, I'll happilly follow it.

/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk follows the same "syntax"
than /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk since it aims at being
a (decent) drop-in replacement for the cdbs trivial patch system.

I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...

A solution would be to add "patch: apply-patches" pseudo-rules to cdbs
files, and such. 

Please fill a bug when you reach a consensus to keep me aware of it.

Bye, Mt.

There is no experimental demonstration of your theorem.
  -- Bastard Reviewer From Hell

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: