On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:11:03PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 15:05 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > Will that support long options? And is it possible to use getopt, and
> > > still preserve most of the dpatch-
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Will that support long options? And is it possible to use getopt, and
> still preserve most of the dpatch-edit-patch syntax?
Yes, and probably yes. There will be _minor_ changes though, but none
I could name right now.
Greetings
Marc
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 15:05 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > Will that support long options? And is it possible to use getopt, and
> > still preserve most of the dpatch-edit-patch syntax?
>
> Yes, and probably yes. There will be _minor_ c
Hi!
> the command line parsing code for --debianonly is strange. Its
> parameter is optional, but the following token is always taken as the
> original tar gz name unless --debianonly= forces the code to accept
> the parameter as empty. This is _very_ strange and unintuitive.
>
> I would like to
Package: dpatch
Version: 2.0.10
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/bin/dpatch-edit-patch
Hi,
the command line parsing code for --debianonly is strange. Its
parameter is optional, but the following token is always taken as the
original tar gz name unless --debianonly= forces the code to accept
the para
5 matches
Mail list logo
