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. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
