On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > > 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.
I don't like -p0, as it doesn't allow the top-level dir to be changed. dbs has -p1 hardcoded, but, I'll try to make it not be so the next generation version. You can put a description in the patch, just like you can with dpatches. Patch itself will ignore non-diff text in the file, read the manpage. :) > 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. I wasn't putting it down. Each system has evolved to perform what the users have desired of it. ----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++++ P+ L++++ !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ----BEGIN PGP INFO---- Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E 63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -----END PGP INFO-----
