On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:29:36PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > I've therefore applied the patch to Report.pm in the Debian Perl > > Group's svn repository and reported it at rt.cpan.org: > > http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=18992 > I suppose you didn't notice that libpdf-report-perl is currently using > dpatch for managing the patches. You're right; puh - how embarrassing! > While I'm aware that there are different opinions on whether dpatch > (and other such patch systems) are a good idea, I suppose everybody can > agree that mixing dpatch and 'straightforward' .diff.gz patching gives > the worst of the both worlds. Of course. > Please consider making this patch into a dpatch as well or removing > the dpatch framework. I reverted Report.pm and added the patch as debian/patches/50addimgscaled.dpatch I'd be thankful if you or someone else could check it again, I have not much experience with dpatch up to now. > I wonder if we (as in pkg-perl-maintainers) should have a policy about > patch systems? I guess a common approach (a.k.a. policy) would be a good idea and ... > If people think that the SVN history keeps patches > separate enough, that's of course fine by me. The only situation where > that doesn't apply is when the patches are older than the first import > to our SVN repository. ... dpatch seems basically cleaner because it separates the patches from the original source. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Tom Waits: Hoist That Rag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature