On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:35:07PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 19:12, Nanakos Chrysostomos > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:26:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> Also, why do you split the -K change in a different patch for each > >> modified files? patches can modify several files and still be a single > >> file, with the advantage and being the only place to look in case a > >> change has to be done. > > > > Another DD has told me in the past that I had to split my patches in order > > for him > > to accept my package and I should always work in that way for my packages > > to be accepted. > > Well, I don't know if it was just a matter of personal taste of that > DD, but it's not a requirement. You should provide a single patch for > a single change, but it's not restricting the patch to touch only one > file. So, in the example of -K, if the addition of it modifies 5 > files, it's perfectly fine (and it is *the* standard way) to provide a > single patch with all the diffs in it.
I had the same perception as you on the issue but as I said before I had been told to follow these instructions. Anyway, your help from now on is precious because I can handle in a much better way future patches and versions of my packages. Thanks! > > Cheers, > -- > Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) > My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ > Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
