Robb, Sam wrote: >>> 9) Generate a patch (./gbs mkpatch) >>> 10) Clean (./gbs mkpatch) >> >> should these both be mkpatch? ;) > > Hmm. Perhaps that's my problem :-) > > The question still remains: assuming that I'm entering > the proper commands (instead of trying to clean using > "mkpatch" :-), is this more or less the way the gbs > is intended to be used?
I'm not really sure how gbs is supposed to be used from a packager's POV. (The user's POV is obvious - ./gbs all) I've found that its usually necessary to modify the gbs for each particular package. To try to maintain reasonable organization of these modifications, I'm piping the upstream gbs through a (fairly inelegant) python script, using per-package config files to specify certain sets of customizations. This makes me wonder if it might be sensible for all package maintainers to say a little about their packaging methods, maybe even leading to a plan for a new standard cygwin package building system. Max.
