On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 21:29:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Very well. I will have a look at implementing such hack, then.
How about this:
commit b5c4390b23f3df0bc92166cb24f9ea120992d628
Author: Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de>
Date: Sun Apr 4 22:33:51 2010 +0200
unpatch quilt ptaches on clean
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index bf5eb38..5886dcb 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
-include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/upstream-tarball.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
+include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk
# suppress optional build-dependencies
@@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ common-configure-impl:: debian/stamp-waf-configure
debian/stamp-waf-configure:
waf configure --prefix=/usr $(MIXED_FLAGS) --firewire --alsa --classic
--dbus
touch $@
-clean::
+clean:: unpatch
rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure
install/jackd::
While we are at it, I'd suggest this change as well for Format 3.0
packages in general:
commit 2d9e25b770cd0ed608a9bb47e40d38829902e6f4
Author: Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de>
Date: Sun Apr 4 22:32:26 2010 +0200
use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch
diff --git a/debian/source/options b/debian/source/options
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9549602
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/source/options
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+# use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch
+single-debian-patch
> Yeah, true. That one piece is Perl. And I really should merge that
> script into licensecheck itself. Just haven't taken the time and social
> endurance yet to figure out how that package is maintained, whom to
> discuss with if ok that I start hack on it to improve it, and how many
> different opinions I need to challenge and argue against regarding Perl
> coding style, intend of that tool etc. etc. etc.
Ok, I think we agree here. Let's start with a wishlist bug against
devscripts for licensecheck2dep5. Do you want to file or shall I?
> Just see how much time we've spent arguing about packaging style here.
> No, I am not whining, just stating the fact that it takes time and
> effort to get involved in yet another development team.
Oh, I don't think this time is wasted, as long as we don't restart it
over and over again.
However, we mustn't forget to add our conclusions to
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging
> So that one hack is Perl but irrelevant for dkpg-dev. And other parts
> are not Perl so irrelevant for dpkg-dev too. As I see it.
As for the repackaging tarball functionality, from the first glance I
also think it could probably live in devscripts as well; conversion to
shell seems really straight forward.
> Please keep challenge me on that, though :-)
At your command :-)
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
