Re: RFS: scrot (updated package)
On Saturday 09 August 2008 05:26:33 William Vera wrote:
> Thanks everyone for their comments
> Nevertheless still a little confused, apparently I do not see any
> patch applied, apparently only need add to debian/rules manually
> delete those files, am I right?
Hello,
Your diff.gz brings in a combined fashion several logically separated changes
directly applied to the upstream source[1]. An external reader can only guess
how many logically separated changes are in there meant by you and how they
should be separated. For example you were trying to fix the build system
files, spelling in options.c, and probably something else I'm not even sure
about. Or, in other words: tell what you were trying to correct, to tell you
if your corrections need to be corrected ;-)
Therefore, it would be very nice of you if you drop a separete and documented
[2] patches for each logical change in debian/patches/, unless an SCM-based
dpkg source format is finished and ready to use and upload (like 3.0 (git)
for instance). You are touching too many files: patch Makefile.am only,
Makefile.in is to be regenerated. All the generated files during the build
process should be removed in the debian/rules's clean target.
[1] lsdiff -z -x '*/debian/*' ../scrot_0.8-8.diff.gz
scrot-0.8/depcomp
scrot-0.8/aclocal.m4
scrot-0.8/config.guess
scrot-0.8/missing
scrot-0.8/ltmain.sh
scrot-0.8/Makefile.in
scrot-0.8/Makefile.am
scrot-0.8/install-sh
scrot-0.8/config.sub
scrot-0.8/mkinstalldirs
scrot-0.8/configure
scrot-0.8/src/options.c
scrot-0.8/src/Makefile.in
scrot-0.8/src/Makefile.am
[2] document the idea and the logic behind the patch, rather than the
programming language technique being used, since the reader most probably can
easily recognize the programming language technique, but that does not hold
true for reasoning behind that change. Some reasons are pretty clear and
obvious (spelling), others are not (like the fixes of weird and subtle bugs)
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: