Re: dpatch & upstream source

[Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>]

I demand that François-Denis Gonthier may or may not have written...

> On 2 November 2005 09:13, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>>> 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.

> oh, and it totally helps to keep _all_ changes in check.  If I change
> anything outside dpatch-edit-patch, it'll be gone at the next cleaning.

> It's a bit of a hassle but since I always feared that a change I've made to
> the upstream source could end up silently in the diff and break the build
> on some platforms, I think it's a good thing to force myself to go through
> dpatch.

Use lsdiff (in patchutils) to find out if a patch is in the wrong place:

  $ lsdiff -z ../foo_1.2.3-4.diff.gz | grep -v /debian/

You can move the offending patches into a file in debian/patches/ with
filterdiff and dpatch-edit-patch:

  $ filterdiff -zx '*/debian/*' ../foo_1.2.3-4.diff.gz | patch -Rp1
  $ dpatch-edit-patch 99_bar

  $ filterdiff -zx '*/debian/*' /proc/$PPID/cwd/../foo_1.2.3-4.diff.gz | patch -p1
  $ exit

All that remains is to update the list of patches and to rebuild...

(I've deliberately done this a few times, and have also accidentally let
patches through...)

-- 
| Darren Salt   | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| sarge,        | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS       | Toon Army      | demon co uk
|   Retrocomputing: a PC card in a Risc PC

Wishful thinking on your part doesn't constitute reality on mine.