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

Re: RFC: draft sub-policy for kernel patches



> 3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_<patchname>',
>      which `unpatch' checks to know whether it has something to do, and
>      which `apply' also checks to not try to re-apply itself.
> 
>      Some patches create this file in the `debian/' subdirectory (and then
>      must create this dir if needed), and some other patches create it at
>      the top-level of the kernel sources.  The latter causes problems
>      because some `apply' scripts remove empty files after patching.
>      Further more, these files are debian-specific, so they may be better
>      in the `debian/' dir anyway.

In the past I had problems using the debian subdirectory, quoting the
kernel-patch-2.2.10-m68k changelog:

 Record of applied patches is now kept in 'debian-patch' instead of
 'debian'. This is because the make-kpkg script from the kernel-patch
 package removes the debian directory on non-official kernel builds
 making it difficult to remove the patches if they were previously
 applied by hand.

Applied by hand meaning, applied by manually running the apply script
i.e. not using the PATCH_THE_KERNEL facility.

Nick

----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Holgate <holgate@debian.org>
GPG key from public servers : Key ID FD9C18AF
Fingerprint = 9DCA EDEA D5C5 57DA 23F3  1A2B 2273 5645 FD9C 18AF

Attachment: pgprMtSYzh5Ew.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: