Bug#250202: Alternate proposal
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:56:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm..
>
> There are more packages than dpatch and dbs floating around
> in Debian; and I consider it to be a step forward to move this way,
> rather than trying to fix each patching script.
My fix is not dpatch specific and I wrote " 'patched' is still
worthwhile" for a reason, did not I ?
I am unsure the patched interface is sufficient to make any changes to
a package: you also need a interface to add new patches, and 'patched'
does not provide any.
Switching to 'clean: patch' allow to make changes the normal way, since
theses changes are 'applied' on top of the package-provided patches
instead of before in the 'clean: unpatch' set up.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: