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

Re: dpatch vs. quilt

Adeodato Simó wrote:

> * Kevin B. McCarty [Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:39:17 -0500]:

>> Out of curiosity, does quilt have a mechanism similar to dpatch that
>> allows you to treat shell scripts as "patches"?  My inability to find
>> such a feature was the main reason I opted for dpatch over quilt in the
>> Cernlib package -- I needed to move a bunch of files around within the
>> source, and doing so with a pure patch system will result in huge and
>> fragile diff files (two copies of each file to be moved, which breaks if
>> upstream changes any of them!).
>   No, in quilt patches are patches, not scripts. :) Why don't you move
>   files around in debian/rules, anyway?

I partly answered this elsewhere in the thread (it's nice to logically
keep together the file-moving operation with the patching of the
Imakefiles to reflect the different file locations, in two files in
debian/patches starting with the same number).

The other reason is that I'm trying to keep my (fairly substantial)
patches to Cernlib [1] accessible to non-Debian distributions.  For
instance Patrice Dumas is using my set of patches in creating Cernlib
RPMs for Fedora Extras.  Moving the files around in debian/rules but
patching the Imakefiles in separate patches under debian/patches would
make his life a lot harder :-P

[1] This includes things like creating shared libraries as well as
static ones, removing circular library dependencies, fixing things to
work on AMD64, etc....  Unfortunately upstream is almost dead and I
don't think they are likely to accept such changes.

best regards,

Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544

Reply to: