Martin Wuertele <[email protected]> writes:
> * Paul Wise <[email protected]> [2011-11-29 03:33]:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > Â - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Â Yes, we should get rid
>> > of
>> > Â them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
>> >
>> > Â - Conditional application of patches. Â Some packages have patches that
>> > are
>> > Â only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
>> >
>> > Â - Patches that don't unapply cleanly after build can be dealt with via
>> > Â 'rm -rf' with a custom patch system, but must be made to unapply cleanly
>> > Â with v3 (quilt).
>>
>> All of these can be dealt with by rewriting the patch so that it is
>> acceptable to upstream and applied and released by them.
>
> Care to explain how conditional per-target-distribution patches should
> be bushed upstream? Think of patches requried for debian/sid,
> debian/squeeze-backports, ubuntu/Oneric Ocelot and ubuntu/Lucid Lynx
> when it comes to build dependencies.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
Not talking about sending upstream but about using 3.0 (quilt) for this:
Patches for ubuntu can be put into debian/patches/series.ubuntu. Dpkg
automatically picks the patch series for the vendor it is on.
Maybe vendor support could also be utilized or extended to support
backports and suites.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
