Hi
2008/8/9 George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Saturday 09 August 2008 05:26:33 William Vera wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for their comments
>> Nevertheless still a little confused, apparently I do not see any
>> patch applied, apparently only need add to debian/rules manually
>> delete those files, am I right?
>
> Hello,
> Your diff.gz brings in a combined fashion several logically separated
> changes
> directly applied to the upstream source[1]. An external reader can only guess
> how many logically separated changes are in there meant by you and how they
> should be separated. For example you were trying to fix the build system
> files, spelling in options.c, and probably something else I'm not even sure
> about. Or, in other words: tell what you were trying to correct, to tell you
> if your corrections need to be corrected ;-)
>
> Therefore, it would be very nice of you if you drop a separete and documented
> [2] patches for each logical change in debian/patches/, unless an SCM-based
> dpkg source format is finished and ready to use and upload (like 3.0 (git)
> for instance). You are touching too many files: patch Makefile.am only,
> Makefile.in is to be regenerated. All the generated files during the build
> process should be removed in the debian/rules's clean target.
>
> [1] lsdiff -z -x '*/debian/*' ../scrot_0.8-8.diff.gz
> scrot-0.8/depcomp
> scrot-0.8/aclocal.m4
> scrot-0.8/config.guess
> scrot-0.8/missing
> scrot-0.8/ltmain.sh
> scrot-0.8/Makefile.in
> scrot-0.8/Makefile.am
> scrot-0.8/install-sh
> scrot-0.8/config.sub
> scrot-0.8/mkinstalldirs
> scrot-0.8/configure
> scrot-0.8/src/options.c
> scrot-0.8/src/Makefile.in
> scrot-0.8/src/Makefile.am
>
But those files are not modified by hand, maybe autotools?, this
package is build with CDBS, then in the rules are 2 lines only,
I can use:
clean::
foo foo1 foo2
But if delete all files, I can rebuild, I guess, so some idea?
> [2] document the idea and the logic behind the patch, rather than the
> programming language technique being used, since the reader most probably can
> easily recognize the programming language technique, but that does not hold
> true for reasoning behind that change. Some reasons are pretty clear and
> obvious (spelling), others are not (like the fixes of weird and subtle bugs)
>
Thanks
> --
> pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
William Vera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4
Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
