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. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature