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 all patch systems used during > package building. > > Here is a summary of the targets used by the different makefile > includes available to the developpers: > > File Package To patch To > depatch > /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make dpatch patch unpatch > /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make quilt patch unpatch > /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk quilt apply-patches > reverse-patches > /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk cdbs apply-patches > reverse-patches > /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk cdbs apply-dpatches > deapply-dpatches > > Since these five files provide patching facilities to a large number of Debian > source packages, it would be very advantageous if they could use the same > name for the patching and depatching rules: developpers could use them > without needing ab initio knowledge of the underlying system. > > Obviously, there is no solution that wouldn't require a change in at least two > packages, and that is the reason I contact all of you and CC debian-devel.
Hello, I'm sorry I'm so overhelmed currently that I cannot follow d-d. Whatever the conclusion of the discussion is, I'll happilly follow it. /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk follows the same "syntax" than /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk since it aims at being a (decent) drop-in replacement for the cdbs trivial patch system. I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV... A solution would be to add "patch: apply-patches" pseudo-rules to cdbs files, and such. Please fill a bug when you reach a consensus to keep me aware of it. Bye, Mt. -- There is no experimental demonstration of your theorem. -- Bastard Reviewer From Hell
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature