On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 00:34:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > >>@@ -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 > > ...because adding above cause the package to need to build-depend on a > few additional packages.
quilt, yes. is this a problem? > >> debian/stamp-waf-configure: >> waf configure --prefix=/usr $(MIXED_FLAGS) --firewire --alsa >> --classic --dbus >> touch $@ >>-clean:: >>+clean:: unpatch >> rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure > > I recommend to keep unrelated routines separate, even if it causes the > rules file to be slightly larger, and document unclear intends: > > > touch $@ > clean:: > rm -f debian/stamp-waf-configure > + > +# Un-apply patches left behind with source format 3.0 (quilt) > patches > +clean:: unpatch > + ok > Also, above always un-applies, not only when using git - I am uncertain > if that will cause problems somewhere. Not sure waht that might be, > just worried... okay, then I'll need to extract some logic from patchsys-quilt.mk >>While we are at it, I'd suggest this change as well for Format 3.0 >>packages in general: >>--- /dev/null >>+++ b/debian/source/options >>@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ >>+# use debian/patches/debian-changes as automatic patch >>+single-debian-patch > > Why? I would consider autogenerated patches an error anyway, so do not > care about its naming. The manpage recommends it this way, as when working in a VCS, the version number, and therefore the file name of the generated patch is meaningless if not wrong. Foring a stable filename ensures that changes go into a single patch. If we consider these autogenerated patches an error, this way we can extend debian/rules to check for existance of this file, and abort with an meaningful error message. >> 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? > > Go ahead and do it. See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472199 >> However, we mustn't forget to add our conclusions to >> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging > > Hmm. I am unsure what is policy and what is suggestions and what is my > stubbornness in what we've discussed here - so please you do that, ok? Well, that's the problem. Now that we allow both cdbs and debhelper, both format 1.0 and 3.0 patches, the page now becomes terribly convoluted. I fear we need more discussion to streamline what we actually want. I could imagine that we agree on a default workflow, which is applied to all packages but exceptions, and list the excepted packages there. -- 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
