Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I very much like the idea ! Attached is a first patch for it. It still > needs manual pages for the new commands but otherwise seems to work in my > quick tests.
Well, if I'd known you'd react that fast, I'd have brought this direct
to your attention earlier!
> I would welcome some more review. I chose to call dh_quilt_unpatch before
> dh_clean because dh_clean should be the last command in charge on cleanup
> of any cruft left.
You're right, particularly WRT the debhelper log, dh_clean needs to come
last.
> Note that with the makefile based approach, the unpatch target is a
> dependency of the clean target so it's even called before dh_auto_clean.
> I wonder if this difference is a problem or on the contrary an improvement...
I guess the question is whether you want to run 'make clean' in a
patched, or an unpatched source tree. I have no real opinion about that,
but I'll bet that some quilt users might..
> +++ b/debian/dh_quilt_patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +set -e
> +
> +export QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches
> +quilt push -a || test $? = 2
I recommend that debhelper commands be perl programs that use
Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib, so that:
* Common debhelper argument processing works.
* Things like verbose mode and no-act mode work.
You might want to read debhelper's PROGRAMMING file.
Rough draft of the above in perl:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib;
init();
$ENV{QUILT_PATCHES}="debian/patches";
complex_doit("quilt push -a || test $? = 2");
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
