On Mon, 1 May 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > I agree, reversing patches is complete silly. What if I patch > configure.in, and then run autoconf (makes for a hugely smaller diff)? > With the mentioned method, I would now have a debian patch for > configure.in, but be forced to have a HUGE configure patch in the > debianization diff. Gross. Better to leave .orig.tar.gz pristine, and let > the maintainers worry about patches. We should get away from > automatically diff'ing the original source to create a debian .diff.gz > file. I can't count the numerous problems with this, including not being > able to include binary files, permissions on the debian/* files not being > carried over (look at the glibc package for a terrible workaround that had > to be done to get around this), and then there is the diff-of-a-diff > thing.
dbs(my patch system) supports 'excludes' that are used during the patch generation. Maybe we need something like that for this. ----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++++ P+ L++++ !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ----BEGIN PGP INFO---- Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E 63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -----END PGP INFO-----
