Dear developpers,
following the discussion on patch systems and standardisation, here is
the wishlist but I sent to the cdbs package. (#466259)
I hope that it can lead to some progress…
Have a nice day,
-- Charles Plessy
- Forwarded message from Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Da
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:27 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:34:58PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > So please go for patch/unpatch.
> >
> > An unpatch target might be problematic. There're packages with patches
> > that touch the upstream Makefile, and calling 'make
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:34:58PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > So please go for patch/unpatch.
>
> An unpatch target might be problematic. There're packages with patches
> that touch the upstream Makefile, and calling 'make unpatch' before
> 'make clean' can break things; of course the clean ta
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...
>
> I think (hope) that no one will be able to find a reason why the two
> target should *n
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:28:14PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > > I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...
> >
> > I think (hope)
[Simon Horman]
>> So please go for patch/unpatch.
>
> Fine by me.
I would very much like the targets to be short and to the point, as I
use the patch and unpatch quite a lot in my workflow. Because of
this, I also would like patch/unpatch over the observed alternative.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...
>
> I think (hope) that no one will be able to find a reason why the two
> target should *n
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...
I think (hope) that no one will be able to find a reason why the two
target should *not* be called "patch" / "unpatch". They are IMO the only
2 that people will be
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:32:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear maintainers of CDBS, dpatch, and quilt,
>
> if you are subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you must have noticed the
> long discussion about patch systems. An idea that was quite popular
> was to standardise the patch target in al
9 matches
Mail list logo
