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 *not* be called "patch" / "unpatch". They are IMO the only > 2 that people will be able to guess out of the blue. > > 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 target can depend on patch, but this seems to complicate things. Why not simply do the unpatch in the clean target? This is what I use in packages I maintain: patch: deb-checkdir patch-stamp patch-stamp: for i in `ls -1 debian/diff/*.diff || :`; do \ patch -p1 <$$i || exit 1; \ done touch patch-stamp clean: deb-checkdir deb-checkuid $(MAKE) clean $(OPTS) test ! -e patch-stamp || \ for i in `ls -1r debian/diff/*.diff || :`; do patch -p1 -R <$$i; done rm -f patch-stamp [...] Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]