Hi Ole, Le 10/05/12 13:18, Olе Streicher a écrit : > Gergely Nagy <alger...@balabit.hu> writes: >> The patch in debian/patches will be large, possibly complicated and >> whatnot, but you can explain how it is created in debian/README.source, >> and live happily ever after. >> >> There are cases where a bit of ugliness is acceptable. This is one such >> case. > > I still do not see what one would gain with this compared to the > debian/rules based solution. In principle, I would just need a target > that is applied just before "dpkg--after-build" is called.
If you use a patch system, you should use it to do the patching: it's just more consistent and much clearer for your fellow developers who will look after your package should a NMU ever be necessary or to help porting to other architectures for instance. Do yourself a favour and just use a patch to patch whatever has to be patched. > I have the same problem in another package: here, an executable is going > to be renamed, and therefore also the manpage. Additionally, the manpage > needs a patch. Since the manpage is renamed, unpatching it after build > fails. Also for this case I would need a place to undo the renaming just > before "dpkg--after-build" is called. Why not copying instead of moving? That said, I really don't get why dpkg--after-build does not call debian/rules clean. It also causes breakages to my packages. I'll investigate that someday. Regards, Thibaut. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4faba94c.5070...@free.fr
