Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Minh Nguyen <nguyenmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
A problem with cddlib-094f.p2.spkg is that it patches upstream source
using a patch file, rather than copying a patched file over to the
appropriate place under the src/ directory. Consequently, there is no
clean separation between upstream source and patches that we apply to
cddlib-094f.
I just want to clarify some points about my previous email.
* I'm not arguing that the command "patch" should never be used in the
installation script of an spkg. You can use it if you wish, but please
be careful not to mix and match. Try to be consistent across the whole
spkg-install file.
But does not Volker Braun have a point when it comes to autotools?
IMO, in the specific case of autotools, it makes perfect sense to
include a diff for configure.in etc. in patches, but include the
generated Makefiles verbatim in patches -- since after patching
configure.in and rerunning autotools (perhaps with a different version
of autotools than upstream), the diffs really do not contain useful
information beyond what the full generated Makefiles does -- the
human-readable difference information is in the configure.in patch.
I hope the Sage reviewers are willing to make an exception for autotools
in this respect in SPKGs.
Dag Sverre
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
