Bug#250202: mandate a common name for "patched source" and/or "unpacked source"
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:57:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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.
I was alluding to:
"So that could be an alternative solution that does not convey that it
is suitable to require the user to run such target."
Policy mandating a name for a target might make it sound like a good idea
to implement such a target, which I disagree with.
> > 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 meant "the package should not require the use of any targets" not
"policy should not require the use of any targets".
> 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.
Yes, but we cannot guess what kind of special targets such packages might need.
So far, all packages I looked at could be packaged to not require unpack
or patch.
On the other hand, maintainer could use README.source to document how
suitable "upstream tarball" can be build (when upstream does not provide
usable tarball).
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: