Hi,
> Looking at the code, I'm a bit confused.
> It looks like this:
>
> patch: patch-stamp (well, ${DPATCH_STAMPFN})
> patch-stamp:
> XX
> XX
>
>
> So, if patch is .PHONY, patch-stamp is a real file, depending on
> 'patch' should do the right thing (only be invoked if patch-stamp does
> not exist), and depending on patch-stamp shouldn't be necessary.
> At least, this is the intention.
>
> Could you give me a testcase / log ?
So, after a face-to-face discussion, it seems like the problem was
dpatch.make did not set 'patch', and 'unpatch' as .PHONY.
The 'simple' solution looks like to set patch and unpatch as .PHONY.
I'm not sure how many packages already depend on this behavior, but
hopefully it won't break too many things.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org}
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
