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

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"):
> Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to
> automatically determine whether the user would like their tree to be
> patches applied or unapplied.

This would have to be some kind of (perhaps package-specific) personal
configuration, I think.

> I do not even know of a way to determine upfront whether a source
> tree is patches applied or unapplied (that check has to be
> independent of the source format).

This is, in the general case, clearly impossible.  As a simple
example, consider the result of the following:

  # .oO{ somepackage is broken }
  dgit clone somepackage && cd somepackage
  # .oO{ hrm I wonder why it is broken - oh there is only one patch }
  # .oO{ oh the breakage is in the busted patch "add zorkmids" }
  git revert -n :/'add zorkmids'
  git commit

Now the tree is exactly identical to a patches-unapplied tree.  But
the user wanted it to drop the patch.  Tools should not reapply it.

> This also brings me to a question about the --unapply-patches option. The man
> page says:

All of this applying and unapplying of patches around build operations
is complete madness if you ask me - but I don't see a better approach
given the constraints.  dgit sometimes ends up doing this (and moans
about it), which is even madder given that dgit has git to help it


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: