On 01/05/2012 10:07 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:09:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > >> The problem with cufflinks, and probably tophat, was that the clean target is >> un-applying the patches, but the binary target, which is implicitely passed >> to >> dh, does not depend on a target that applies the patch. For local builds, it >> just happens by chance that they are applied, because the source package is >> built before the binary packages. >> > I had a short look into tophat and I wonder why cou need to override the > clean targets at all. This looks hackish and might be the cause of your > trouble. Usually source format 3.0 (quilt) cares for all you need and > there is no need to manually call dh_quilt_(un)patch at all. Did you > tried simply droping these statements? > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > Hi Andreas ,
It was left from time I was building packages without git-buildpackage :) . With this overrides one can built and clean package multiple times and dpkg-source wouldn't complain about changed source . I've committed the clean debian/rules to the rep. Best regards , Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
