Hi All , On 01/05/2012 11:20 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:07:52AM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > >> 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? >> > I think that it was carried over using cufflinks as a template. > True . > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/cufflinks.git;a=commitdiff;h=7b0dc54968184db8823abf9176d0cbb4fd08dddc > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/tophat.git;a=commitdiff;h=45d35bf897f7e58698cbb5ea0f73767400ea2ab8 > > In any case, I agree that these overrides are not necessary. What they > probably try to do is to circumvent the difficulties introduced by the 3.0 > (quilt) format when working in Git repositories, which can be solved by either > pushing and pulling the patches by hand, or following Raphaël's > recommendations > in his blog. > > > http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/11/18/4-tips-to-maintain-a-3-0-quilt-debian-source-package-in-a-vcs/ > Great link , I use first tip - ignoring .pc . > I prefer to just do it by hand, and more recently I started to commit directly > patches to the master branch and expose them in debian/patches for > http://patch-tracker.debian.org/. > > Cheers, > > Regards , Alex
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
