On Sun, 2017-04-09 at 18:54 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Hmmrr. Patching .c files generated by valac sounds absurd. Is there ever > > a circumstance where you want to do that instead of patching the .vapi > > or .vala file? Because if you do, that sounds like a bug in valac > > instead.
> Maybe just a misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting to patch the > generated .c files. Of course one should apply such a change to the > .vala file. In such a case though, you need to rerun valac. And once > you setup debian/rules to do that, you can just do it always and > forget about the generated .c files. Correct. Is there anything holding you back from rerunning valac after applying a patch during dpkg-buildpackage? Consider valac to be the compiler, in these cases. Consider patching the .c files similar to patching the .o file. As for Tracker's distributed release: we don't expect downstream to patch our generated .c files (whenever they got generated by, among others, valac). If you need to do this, we really want to know about this for a variety of reasons (among others, understanding stack traces from reported bugs). Kind regards, Philip
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
