Re: duplicate library code in a package
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: duplicate library code in a package
- From: Joey Hess <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:17:57 -0400
- Message-id: <20051001031757.GA578@kitenet.net>
- In-reply-to: <433ADFBA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20050928161512.GA1394@sorrow.no-ip.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20050928173602.GM11117@miami.familiasanchez.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <433ADFBA.email@example.com>
Andreas Fester wrote:
> not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
That's self-contradictory. And wrong.
> One reason could be to remove autotools dependencies, another could be
> to remove files which would otherwise be removed by the "clean" target
> and would end up in a huge diff.gz.
If you remove files in the clean target they will not appear in your
diff.gz. The clean target is run before generating the diff.
see shy jo
Description: Digital signature