Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Go ahead. > > Fine. Should the patch go to patch-tmp or patch-xdvi-370505 (or > something else, patch-src?!).
I currently don't have an overview of how the patches once were organised, were supposed to be organized, and are in fact disorganized. >From the names I'd say: patch-xdvi-370505 is not a good idea, IIRC the number is the xdvi bug number on sourceforge. patch-tmp makes sense since it's already applied upstream. On the other hand we'll never get a new xdvi source from teTeX, so creating a new patch won't hurt and maybe make things clearer. > I have other questions about patches. > > 1. Why does README.patches say this: > > A file may only be changed in _one_ of them. For quilt usage, > check its manpage or README.Developers. > > The quilt docs make it clear that a file can be changed by several > patches... Precaution? No, either I was wrongly assuming that quilt couldn't do it; or this is just a leftover from the handwritten patch system, and I didn't properly adjust it when I added the remark about quilt. > 2. quilt.html also says this: > > Documentation related to a patch can be put at the beginning of a > patch file. Quilt is careful to preserve all text that precedes > the actual patch when doing a refresh. > > Maybe that could be used instead of README.patches. I don't claim > it would be better, I just don't know if you knew about this > possibility when starting to document the individual patches in > README.patches. I didn't know, or maybe README.patches started to exist before we used quilt. I think it would probably be better to document it in the patch. Anyway, feel free to change what you think is appropriate; tetex-bin is not mine ;-) Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
