TED]> -
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:37:31 +0900
From: Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: cdbs: Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in
debian/rules.
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.31
Package: cdbs
Version: 0.4.48
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
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 ta
10 matches
Mail list logo
