* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080304 08:31]:
>
> >>> I don't know if we want to allow for that or not. I find the logic
> >>> dubious, but dpatch supports that mode of operation.
> >> I have to admit that I consider using a patch system in this way to be a
> >> bug. I think we might want to upload with this check and see if there
> >> are too many "false" positives.
>
> FWIW I give a +1 for this warning. IMO one shouldn't ship the changes from
> the patch in the .diff.gz too. Thats just wrong. Better would be to have
> a common patch/unpatch target defined in policy.
A future better solution might be good, but currently I just hate any
package making me jump through hops to just see the actual source, so
my packages don't do such uglyness like requiring people to call "patch"
targets.
But I agree a general warning is nice, though it should be easily
circumventable. (Though I guess it always is via renaming the patches
dir to something else).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
