On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:52:09PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote: > I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written... > > > I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing: > > > On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > >> `Hate patch systems' can easily apply all chunks and start > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! > > > Easily. Heh. You should be a comedian. > > Actually, yes, it *should* be easy: "debian/rules patch".
I can't see any mention of that target in Policy. Am I looking at a badly outdated version? (3.7.2.0, 2006-05-04). It also fails to work on a split-patch package I've been working on over the weekend (just to renew my hatred of such systems). Should I be filing a serious bug against that package? Even the devref, s6.1, fails to make the slightest mention (let alone recommendatation) as to a target to provide. Even the two patch systems it does mention don't provide a common interface to such a common and necessary task. Can you provide an authoritative reference which documents the universal necessity of a patch target to debian/rules? Or are you, perhaps, taking the convention of a single patch management system and ass-u-ming that it works across the board, when it, most assuredly, does not? > Bwahahaha, as they say. :-) Yep, I certainly do say that. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]