On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:56:00PM +0000, Nick Holgate wrote:
> > 3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_<patchname>',
> > which `unpatch' checks to know whether it has something to do, and
> > which `apply' also checks to not try to re-apply itself.
> >
> > Some patches create this file in the `debian/' subdirectory (and then
> > must create this dir if needed), and some other patches create it at
> > the top-level of the kernel sources. The latter causes problems
> > because some `apply' scripts remove empty files after patching.
> > Further more, these files are debian-specific, so they may be better
> > in the `debian/' dir anyway.
>
> In the past I had problems using the debian subdirectory, quoting the
> kernel-patch-2.2.10-m68k changelog:
>
> Record of applied patches is now kept in 'debian-patch' instead of
> 'debian'. This is because the make-kpkg script from the kernel-patch
> package removes the debian directory on non-official kernel builds
> making it difficult to remove the patches if they were previously
> applied by hand.
The point seems valid. Draft updated. You'll note I used
'debian-patches' instead of the 'debian-patch' you used - it just
seems more natural to me. Again, comments welcomed.
revision 1.4
date: 2000/11/02 00:22:34; author: dwitch; state: Exp; lines: +11 -9
Changed debian/APPLIED_* to debian-patches/APPLIED_*
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
