On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 08:26:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Ben Collins wrote: > > Still, documentation. Dpkg-source isn't friendly without documentation. > > Nothing is. > > "Oh look, here's a tarball. Hm, and here is a patch that seems to apply > to it. Ok, I see a full source tree now and I'm on my way." > > vs. > > "Oh look, here's a tarball. Hm, and here is a patch that seems to apply > to it. But wait, why did that tarball include another tarball, and why > did that patch include what looks like other patches inside it? Double > patches? Ugh. What do I do from here? How do I apply all these patches > in the right order?"
"hmm, there's a file README.build, oh run 'debian/rules setup'. cool, that works now" The only reason this isn't cleaner is because it's a hack on top of an aging source format. Making it more streamlined would require support from dpkg-source. IMO, it would look like: foo_1.0.tar.bz2 foo_1.0-3_debian.tar.gz (debian directory) foo_1.0-3_patches.tar.gz (get applied in the order they are packed) Makes more sense than what we have now, and is easier to seperate (where as now, the entire debian directory is in a diff, and would be easier to parse as a tarball of it's own). The point being, I'm not arguing that the format I or other people are using is right, but the "system" is more useful than what we are given to use (the diff/dsc/tar setup). You can argue about the tar in a tar all you want, I don't like it either. But the seperate patch set is a must, and don't argue "well apply and remove it during the build/clean targets of debian/rules" because that is ugly and asking for problems. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
