On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:05:23AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Adam Heath writes: > > Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is, so I don't trust his assement of > the > > issue. I never said glibc nor gcc use dbs. They use a system like dbs, > one I > > feel is incorrect(each .dpatch system includes code to apply the patch, > which, > > I feel, is code duplication). > > There was no alternative system, when I "designed" the dpatch > system. The code duplication is needed, because a .dpatch is > self-contained. For most cases it calls patch with the .dpatch file as > the patch file. Other commands are run after applying the > patch. Currently that's only the case for configure. It's tedious to > regenerate the patches if you have two independent patches for a > configure.in. But yes, you could extend this format to use Pre-Patch > and Post-Patch commands.
On top of that, a lot of patches for gcc are obtained from the gcc-patches list. Some of those are in -p0 format, some are in -p1. So it is always useful to not have to modify these. On top of that, each .dpatch includes a description of what the patch does, so that the gcc build system can parse it out and put all of the Debian changes into one file, specific to that revision/arch. Adam, don't put down a system that precedes dbs. It is tried and true to it's purpose and solves things that DBS cannot. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
