Bug#250202: mandate a common name for "patched source" and/or "unpacked source"
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:43:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Can you consider suggesting default targets for this sort of
> > unpacking?
>
> I already objected to that before.
AFAICT, your objection in <20040521101142.GE5026@seventeen> was to
packages which even required special targets to be unpacked and
patched, as the diff.gz should ship with the patches applied.
> The correct way to proceed is to not require the use of any
> targets. There is no real needs for them outside very awkward
> situations, and then we don't know what kind of target would be
> useful.
Requiring them is a couple steps farther than what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting that if packages need to have special targets to unpack
and apply patches, they should by default be named similarly. If a
package has special concerns that require different targets, policy
should allow them.
This is basically an attempt to avoid having maintainers make up their
own names for this process... having to run 'debian/rules untargz
munge;' on one package, 'debian/rules unpack patch' on another,
especially when we could suggest sane defaults to avoid this, seems
silly.
In effect, this would alleviate the need to read debian/README.source
in the most trivial cases where a README.source should be provided.
Don Armstrong
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: