Re: RFC: draft sub-policy for kernel patches

[Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:56:00PM +0000, Nick Holgate wrote:
> > 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.

The point seems valid.  Draft updated.  You'll note I used
'debian-patches' instead of the 'debian-patch' you used - it just
seems more natural to me.  Again, comments welcomed.

revision 1.4
date: 2000/11/02 00:22:34;  author: dwitch;  state: Exp;  lines: +11 -9
Changed debian/APPLIED_* to debian-patches/APPLIED_*


Regards,
-- 
Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://ydirson.free.fr/             | Check <http://www.debian.org/>