On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 08:18:14PM +0000, David Coe wrote:
> We have a patch to ispell, submitted to one of the
> open bugs, which upstream maintainer has decided
> isn't important enough to incorporate into the
> upstream versions -- but is (apparently) needed
> for non-i386 (Alpha, at least) compatibility in
> Debian.
Why not? If you explain why it's needed (that it's more than just a
correctness nit) I can't see any reason why they wouldn't. Particularly
if it's minor.
> I think I like the separate patch file better,
> though, because it'll be easier to keep this
> patch separate from other patches made for
> other purposes, when migrating to newer releases
> of upstream source.
> Is that wrong? If not, do we have a standard
> or common way of naming such patch files?
There is a system for doing this (used in egcs and XFree86) which was
written Adam Heath (IIRC) but it's not been released properly for
general use yet due to lack of documentation.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgp3eXKtyLEGx.pgp
Description: PGP signature