FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-03-2008, 08:32 AM
Charles Plessy
 
Default Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

Dear maintainers of CDBS, dpatch, and quilt,

if you are subscribed to debian-devel@l.d.o, 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 targets used by the different makefile
includes available to the developpers:

File Package To patch To depatch
/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make dpatch patch unpatch
/usr/share/quilt/quilt.make quilt patch unpatch
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk quilt apply-patches reverse-patches
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk cdbs apply-patches reverse-patches
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk cdbs apply-dpatches deapply-dpatches

Since these five files provide patching facilities to a large number of Debian
source packages, it would be very advantageous if they could use the same
name for the patching and depatching rules: developpers could use them
without needing ab initio knowledge of the underlying system.

Obviously, there is no solution that wouldn't require a change in at least two
packages, and that is the reason I contact all of you and CC debian-devel.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian-med packaging team
Wakō, Saitama, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2008, 08:39 AM
Petter Reinholdtsen
 
Default Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

[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 Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2008, 10:01 AM
Colin Watson
 
Default Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

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) 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.
>
> Fine by me.
>
> Though if you dug a bit deeper I suspect you would find rather a
> lot of packages that supply patch/unpatch targets under various names.
>
> Perhaps a policy is in order? That way lintian and friends would
> alert packagers to the problem.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=250202

(The discussion is long, but has recent activity.)

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-17-2008, 01:48 PM
Charles Plessy
 
Default Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

Dear developpers,

following the discussion on patch systems and standardisation, here is
the wishlist but I sent to the cdbs package. (#466259)

I hope that it can lead to some progress…

Have a nice day,

-- Charles Plessy

----- Forwarded message from Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org> -----

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:37:31 +0900
From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
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
Severity: wishlist

Le Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:32:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Here is a summary of the targets used by the different makefile
> includes available to the developpers:
>
> File Package To patch To depatch
> /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make dpatch patch unpatch
> /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make quilt patch unpatch
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk quilt apply-patches reverse-patches
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk cdbs apply-patches reverse-patches
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk cdbs apply-dpatches deapply-dpatches

Dear CDBS hackers,

Two weeks ago I have contacted the mainainers of the three most
popular patch systems in Debian, to ask them their opinion about the
standardisation of the name of the targets they use in the includes
they provide for debian/rules makefiles.

I have got an answer from the quilt maintainers, saying that they will
follow the conclusions of the discussion, and the opinions expressed
on debian-devel are supporting the idea of using patch and unpatch as
target names.

Since it is the name already used in dpatch, and since the quilt
maintainers agreed to modify /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk
if needed, the most straightforward way to reach standardisation would
be if you would change /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk and
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk to support the use of 'patch' and
'unpatch' instead of 'apply-patches', 'apply-dpatches',
'reverse-patches' and 'deapply-dpatches'.

The direct benefit of such a standardisation would be that in most
cases, when a 'debian/patches' directory exists, there would be an
obvious command to try for applying the patches, that would work in most
of the cases.

I do not know enough the internals of CDBS to evaluate if my request
would be easy to implement, but in any case, feedback would be most
welcome, to know if this is an open issue or not.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian-Med packaging team
Wakō, Saitama, Japan

----- End forwarded message -----

--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org