Hi there!
On Tue, 15 May 2012 01:10:19 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Clint Adams wrote:
>> dpkg-source is more intolerant of fuzz than quilt itself.
>> Run quilt refresh on the patch and it should be happier.
>
> Ar ... is this on purpose? Or by chance? Or to drive
> d
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Norbert Preining [120515 01:10]:
>> For these kind of things the expected behaviour is that quilt and
>> dpkg-source behave the same way, and if not, dpkg-source should
>> warn or whatever.
>
> I think the patched debian source format should not depend on what
> qu
* Norbert Preining [120515 01:10]:
> For these kind of things the expected behaviour is that quilt and
> dpkg-source behave the same way, and if not, dpkg-source should
> warn or whatever.
I think the patched debian source format should not depend on what
quilt does but be sensible within itself.
Hi Clint,
thanks a lot or the answer.
On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Clint Adams wrote:
> dpkg-source is more intolerant of fuzz than quilt itself.
> Run quilt refresh on the patch and it should be happier.
Ar ... is this on purpose? Or by chance? Or to drive
developers crazy?
No, an answer "it is w
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:59:38AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> can anyone explain the following:
> # in a debian pacakge unpacked:
>
> $ quilt push -a
> Applying patch 01-desktop.patch
> patching file poedit.desktop
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 15 with fuzz 2 (offset 12 lines).
dpkg-source is more
Hi everyone,
can anyone explain the following:
# in a debian pacakge unpacked:
$ quilt push -a
Applying patch 01-desktop.patch
patching file poedit.desktop
Hunk #1 succeeded at 15 with fuzz 2 (offset 12 lines).
Now at patch 01-desktop.patch
$ # ok, that went fine
$ quilt pop -a
Removing patch 01
6 matches
Mail list logo
