Your message dated Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:53:25 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules
has caused the Debian Bug report #476457,
regarding Improve dpatch(1) example of modifying debian/rules
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
476457: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=476457
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpatch
Version: 2.0.29
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hello,
I've been told dpatch(1) has an example of how to change debian/rules. I learnt
it from my sponsor, and I've noticed it's more hackish than necessary.
This patch adds another option to the example using
/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make. I've added it before the other example as I think
people should use that one so that future improvements/fixes to the
patch/unpatch targets in dpatch.make are automatically taken by the packages
using it. Feel free to disagree with me and put it as a second example if you
want.
Best,
Emilio
--- dpatch.1 2008-04-16 20:47:54.000000000 +0200
+++ dpatch.1.new2 2008-04-16 20:58:49.000000000 +0200
@@ -363,6 +363,26 @@ After dpatchifying, this would look like
.RS
.sp
.nf
+include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make
+config.status: patch configure
+ ./configure \-\-prefix=/usr \-\-mandir=/usr/share
+build: config.status
+ ${MAKE}
+clean: unpatch
+ $(testdir)
+ $(testroot)
+ ${MAKE} distclean
+ rm \-rf debian/imaginary\-package debian/files debian/substvars
+
+.fi
+.sp
+.RE
+
+Another option would be:
+
+.RS
+.sp
+.nf
config.status: patch configure
./configure \-\-prefix=/usr \-\-mandir=/usr/share
build: config.status
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As mentioned already in the bug report, dpatch.make(7) (which is
referenced by dpatch(1)) already shows an example very similar to the
one proposed.
The dpatch(1) manual page is meant to document the dpatch command
itself, and only that. That's the reason dpatch.make(7) even exists.
Since an example is already provided, at a place where the original
author and (soon to be) current maintainer intended it to be, I'm
closing this bug report.
--
|8]
--- End Message ---
