Bug#250202: Alternate proposal
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> + <p>
> + If, even after this warning, a maintainer still chooses to
> + do so by either creating the layout of the source package
> + such that running <prgn>dpkg-source -x</prgn> does not
> + render editable source, or by managing files anywhere in the
> + package in such a way that running
> + <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> may overwrite changes, then
> + they should create a file <file>debian/README.source</file>
> + documenting the way the source package is structured; such a
> + file would typically explain to someone not familiar with
> + the package how to create a modified version of the
> + package. It would also document any gotchas one might
> + encounter.</p>
> + <p>
> + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> + <tt>patched</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This
> + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked
> + source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules
> + binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules patched</prgn>
> + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not
> + fail.
> + </p>
> +
> </chapt>
I would like to make one comment:
There are essentially two ways to use patch systems like dpatch: In
debian/rules have 'clean' depend on 'unpatch' or on 'patch'. While the
standard way is to depend on 'unpatch', if you make it depends on
'patch', then all patches are applied by "dpkg-source -x" and you don't
need the 'patched' target anymore. The cost on implementing the
'patched' target is higher than fixing the 'clean' dependency.
There are some cases like dbs where this will not work, so 'patched' is
still worthwhile, but before asking the other packages to implement
'patched', we should consider to ask them implementing 'clean: patch'
instead.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: