On Sun, 29 May 2011 10:53:03 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Auto-application of patches > --------------------------- > > I would like to improve this situation and not force the majority of > people to add the unapply-patches option (if it turns out the majority > of people use this option or are annoyed by the patches being applied).
Yup, I was already considering to (propose to) add it (and also abort-on-upstream-changes) to all pkg-perl packages to avoid checking in patched files. > b/ modify dpkg-source --before-build to keep a trace of the fact that > it applied the patches (for example by creating > .pc/dpkg-source-auto-applied) and in that case have dpkg-source > --after-build unapply the patches so that we're back to a clean > state after a succesful build. > If the build fails, we'd keep the patches applied. Sounds good to me. > Automatic patches > ----------------- > > But it still happens that those patches are generated[1] when the maintainer > did not expect any change at all. That's why we added the option > --abort-on-upstream-changes for maintainers who never wants dpkg-source > to auto-create a patch. > > I wonder if I should not make this option the default and fail with an > error messages suggesting that the maintainer should run "dpkg-source > --record-changes" if he really wants to keep the current changes. It > would also leave the diff around somewhere in $TMPDIR if the user wants > to review it. Sounds also good to me. Thanks for working on these improvements! Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - PGP/GPG key ID: 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Kurt Ostbahn & Die Kombo: Na, so wirst ned oid
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
