Re: About new source formats for packages without patches
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: About new source formats for packages without patches
- From: Jens Peter Secher <jps@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:04:42 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] x2wc4f47b5b1003311704w73e6efafha33f5ecfd4d8830b@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <4BB20EC7.9090204@incase.de>
- References: <20100325114955.GA3756@rivendell> <87hbo39b6j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100326073243.e7247d1b.codehelp@debian.org> <20100326082538.GC7318@rivendell> <20100328004259.GB20941@dario.dodds.net> <20100328075209.GD14631@rivendell> <87tys0oohe.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20100328085138.GG14631@rivendell> <87pr2onmc3.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <4BB20EC7.9090204@incase.de>
On 30 March 2010 16:46, Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de> wrote:
> My main reason for not yet switching is that hg-buildpackage and
> svn-buildpackage don't completely support the 3.0 format yet as far as I
> can tell.
You can try out mercurial-buildpackage, where I have tried to support
"3.0 (quilt)" as good as I could: the default branch contains the
fully patched source code as well as the explicit debian/patches.
That way you can just hack away anywhere in your package and
repeatedly run mercurial-buildpackage until you are satisfied, and
then finally rename the dpkg-source autogenerated patch to something
meaningful. But I would like to hear suggestions for improvements...
Ohh, and thanks to Raphael Hertzog for doing all the hard work on the
new formats!
Cheers,
--
Jens Peter Secher.
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_.
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
Reply to: