Le ven 01/08/2003 à 11:13, Rene Engelhard a écrit : > Hi, > > [ changing the subject... ] > > Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > Ah? > > And why > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2003/debian-openoffice-200307/msg00171.html, then? > > Because of exactly the reason I wrote already. :P Understood, thanks. Chris was telling me to use whatever string before, but I didn't catch it. > > Chris writes in that message: > > --- officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Office/Common.xcu 8 Apr > > 2003 15:55:00 -0000 1.10 > > +++ officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Office/Common.xcu 20 May > > 2003 10:54:34 -0000 > > > > to this: > > > >--- openoffice/officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Office/Common.xcu > >8 Apr 2003 15:55:00 -0000 1.10 > >+++ openoffice/officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Office/Common.xcu > >20 May 2003 10:54:34 -0000 > > If you would do the "first variant patch", it would strip of officecfg and > does not find the file. On the second one openoffice is stripped, > officecfg/* remains and can be found for patching > > debisn/scripts/patch.apply contains: > | if $cmd $parms $f | (cd $SOURCE_TREE; patch -p1) > $stampfile.log; then > > So the patches are applied when you are alread in $SOURCE_TREE > (build_tree/oo_1.1_rc in his case) and you of course need that officecfg/ to > figure out which file to patch.... > > Grüße/Regards, > > René -- Jérôme Warnier <jwarnier@beeznest.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=