On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target > > > > + <tt>source</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 source</prgn> > > > > + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not > > > > + fail. > > > > > > What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning > > > of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy? > > > > Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy, > > since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at > > least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If > > you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The > > 'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have > > this target isn't buggy at all. > > Yeah, but I know quite a few older packages that contain a snippet like: > source diff: > @echo >&2 'source and diff are obsolete - use dpkg-source -b'; false > > Don't know why, this must be way before my time in Debian... > It would be good to check for the amount of packages affected by that > nevertheless.
A bit over 1100 source packages, nearly 15% of the archive or something like that. (curiously, the big majority of them have 65 spaces after the colon). Guess there was a lot of copy&pasting going on. Anyway, > 1100 source packages is way too much to suddenly change. 'unpack-source' or something would be a bit more verbose and more unlikely to clash. > > > (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record) > > > > Is that a formal second? > > Not (yet). I still second the idea, but think a better actual name for the target is due. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
