On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Fran?ois-Denis Gonthier wrote: > On 2 November 2005 09:13, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > I'm working on some big changes for the new upstream of the erlang > > > packages. The biggest change is that the package is now fully using > > > dpatch, *but*, basing myself on some other package I've seen (coreutils > > > for example), I've put the compressed upstream right in the package. It > > > is extracted using a dpatch scriptlet. > > > > > > Is it okay to do that, for one thing? > > > > Out of interest, I would be interested in the advantages of having a > > tarball like that. > > I'm no expert, but in my case it limits the changes done to the upstream > source to what is done with the patches. Erlang build system leaves a bit of > changes behind after the build and that went right into the .diff. My > cleaning rules used to be ugly and even that didn't keep unwanted changes > from slipping in the .diff Any reason to use a .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 instead of an .ar archive? Seems that would be more efficicient with CPU.
Also, how does this work WRT pristine source requirements? I notice that coreutils embedded upstream tarball is pristine, but of course the .orig is not. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
