Re: quilt, cdbs, dpatch, but is there even simpler ?

[Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>]

Hi,

I was unclear.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 12:59:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > >> > > I moved to debian/patches with dpatch.  Is this a reasonable solution?
> > > >> > 
> > > >> >   use what you like. I usually find quilt simpler, but really, I care
> > > >> > much about you beeing comfortable with it than me. You may want to
> > > >> > read[0].
> > > >> 
> > > >> Wow, quilt is much easier to use.  The new maintainer guide recommended
> > > >> dpatch but it sort of sucked, good thing I asked :)
> > > >
> > > > For the moment I use dpatch, but is is a slight work overhead since it
> > > > is needed to convert patches to dpatches,
> > > 
> > > Are you sure, this is necessary? AFAIK the comments and shell commands
> > > are optional.
> > 
> > Comments are optional but the first line is needed now as:
> > #! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run
> > 
> > I had the same impression as yours.

This was wrong impression of mine. 

I should have said after this as:

If we ever want to make dpatch to function like quilt, I guess, changing
following 2 lines should fix situation.  But I have no idea how this
affects other parts of dpatch.

> > I guess changing following 2 lines should fix situation.
> > 
> > line 416: test -x ${patch} || chmod +x ${patch}
> > line 434: if eval ${patch} -patch ${wd} ${redir} ${stamp}.new 2>&1; then
> > 
> > I guess drop 416 and run dpatch-run in 434.
> > 
> > Probably, deapply needs fix too.
> >

So I am not so interested to change it.

> > I do not know this is caused by some design decision or not.  (CCing to current
> > active maintainer)
> 
> Yeah, I guess it was a design decision.  If I follow your advise, I
> will break those tools that do not run dpatch-run. Most of the
> original dpatch scriptlets contained shell scripts which
> applied/deapplied themselves.

Thanks.

>               dpatch patch-template -p "01_some_patch" "A random patch" \
>                    <random.diff >debian/patches/01_some_patch.dpatch

Yes of cource.

I guess the original poster (not me) felt even doing this simple task
was more than just "cp andom.diff ebian/patches/01_some_patch.dpatch".

I like dpatch approach to lead people to add description since it 
documents patch well.

At the same time, first line seems redundant.  So if you can devise
means to check this diff file style, we may have one without executable
as the third variant.

1. Old long script header executable.
2. New Short 1 line script.
3. No executable (a file not started with #!)

For 1 and 2, execute as now.
For 3, just assume to apply as -p1 patch like 2.

Well, this is super low priority wish list.

Osamu