Your message dated Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:06:34 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: dpatch: [manual] DPATCH IN DEBIAN PACKAGES (outdated example) has caused the Debian Bug report #372785, regarding dpatch: [manual] DPATCH IN DEBIAN PACKAGES (outdated example) to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 372785: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=372785 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: dpatch Version: 2.0.20 Severity: normal Manual page reads: DPATCH IN DEBIAN PACKAGES After dpatchifying, this would look like this: config.status: patch configure ./configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share build: config.status ${MAKE} clean: clean-patched unpatch clean-patched: $(testdir) $(testroot) ${MAKE} distclean rm -rf debian/imaginary-package debian/files debian/substvars patch: patch-stamp patch-stamp: dpatch apply-all dpatch call-all -a=pkg-info >patch-stamp unpatch: dpatch deapply-all rm -rf patch-stamp debian/patched PROBLEM Please update this example to use debhelper. Following do not match the current template: $(testdir) $(testroot) The current debian/rules (std 3.7.2) template also does not define target: config.status It is also more standard to use $(MAKE) instead of ${MAKE}, which both are allowed syntaxed. The parentheses syntax is more in par with the current status quo of Makefile usage. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ISO-8859-1) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) dpatch depends on no packages. Versions of packages dpatch recommends: ii dpkg-dev 1.13.21 package building tools for Debian ii fakeroot 1.5.8 Gives a fake root environment ii patchutils 0.2.31-3 Utilities to work with patches -- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Just because the example does not use debhelper, it will not become outdated. Not until the Policy mandates debhelper usage. Therefore, I do not consider the lack of debhelper-ism a bug in the manual. Rather, I consider it a feature, that the example does not mention a tool that is not required for dpatch to work. I expect people who use dpatch to be able to translate the dpatchification to debhelper (there are also examples under /usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/ that do use debehlper). As for $(MAKE) vs ${MAKE}: the example (and the dpatch sources themselves, at least the parts that I have written) uses ${...} for variables and $(...) for function calls. And since both ${MAKE} and $(MAKE) work, and do the right thing, I'll opt to keep ${MAKE}, which I personally prefer. And last, but not least: the config.status target. Indeed, it is not mentioned in policy. But policy does not mention the various -stamp targets, either, nor many of the various targets people use to make their debian/rules files maintainable. Anyone who's worked with make, should be able to recognise what the original and what the dpatchified makefile snippet does. Since I consider all of the "issues" listed in the bugreport invalid, I'm closing the bug. -- |8]
--- End Message ---
