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

Bug#250202: mandate a common name for "patched source" and/or "unpacked source"o

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:11:42PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to add two targets to the debian/rules file,
> > say, "unpacked" and "patched" or something[1], which would unpack the
> > source, resp. patch it using the provided patches? These targets would
> > be mandatory if an unpacked source package would not provide an unpacked
> > source tree, and optional otherwise.
> I would prefer if they do not require to run such target in the first
> place. There is no need for it, you can just ship the patches preapplied
> (with dpatch, it is just a matter of making clean depend of patch
> instead of unpatch).

While, in principle, I have nothing against this, it would make a huge
number of packages InstaBuggy, which clearly is not the way to go.

> I heard that doogie is developing a new release of dbs that would not
> require to run such target anymore.
> Also all my packages with non-trivial source process include a file
> ./README.source that explain how source should be handled.

Hm. That sounds like a good idea, too.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: