|--==> Eric Dantan Rzewnicki writes: EDR> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:51:11PM +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>Hi Eric, >>|--==> Eric Dantan Rzewnicki writes: EDR> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:46:37AM +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>>>Hi Eric, >>>>svn-inject -o <package>.dsc svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/demudi >>>> >>>>(you will need the svn-buildpackage package installed EDR> Doing it like that injected the phat docs and source into EDR> /branches/upstream/. From looking at what's in svn for most of the EDR> demudi packages, it seems this is not what I want. Most packages have a EDR> /branches/upstream/ directory, but they are largely empty. EDR> Perhaps what I want is to use --no-branches? >> >>Mmh, the -o option should be enough (see svn-inject). By the way, I've >>run svn up but I can't see the sources you've imported. I've seen >>you've deleted your import, if you need help with that just let me >>have the source package and I'll do that for you.
EDR> I can handle it. I just got freaked out and assumed I had done something EDR> wrong. The existing diff touches a lot more than I expected it would EDR> need to. I should have looked through it before svn-injecting. Sorry for EDR> the false start. EDR> I'll go read the svn-buildpackage docs before I mess it up again. EDR> I was going to inject the existing packaging for future reference before EDR> I start on the new one. Is that worthwhile? >> >>Definitely I would do that. EDR> Ok. thanks. No problem, ideally the .diff.gz should touch only the debian/ directory, and leave the upstream code clean. If you need to patch the code, better to put patches in debian/patches. I'm sure you know all this, but just for clearness. If the existing package is to messy, you can also avoid to inject it and start directly from the new one. Ciao! Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
