Re: dpatch & upstream source
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Fran?ois-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> On 2 November 2005 09:13, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I'm working on some big changes for the new upstream of the erlang
> > > packages. The biggest change is that the package is now fully using
> > > dpatch, *but*, basing myself on some other package I've seen (coreutils
> > > for example), I've put the compressed upstream right in the package. It
> > > is extracted using a dpatch scriptlet.
> > >
> > > Is it okay to do that, for one thing?
> >
> > Out of interest, I would be interested in the advantages of having a
> > tarball like that.
>
> I'm no expert, but in my case it limits the changes done to the upstream
> source to what is done with the patches. Erlang build system leaves a bit of
> changes behind after the build and that went right into the .diff. My
> cleaning rules used to be ugly and even that didn't keep unwanted changes
> from slipping in the .diff
Any reason to use a .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 instead of an .ar archive?
Seems that would be more efficicient with CPU.
Also, how does this work WRT pristine source requirements? I notice
that coreutils embedded upstream tarball is pristine, but of course
the .orig is not.
--
Clear skies,
Justin
Reply to: